User login
Ten changes that could keep clinicians in the workforce in a pandemic
Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.
“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.
“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”
Among the other action items are:
- Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
- Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
- Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
- Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
- Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.
The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine
Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost
Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.
She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.
“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.
Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.
“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.
Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.
“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”
Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.
“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.
Favorable reactions to list
Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”
Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.
Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.
“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement
Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.
The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.
According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.
“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.
The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
Related research
A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.
The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.
Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.
The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”
Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.
“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.
“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”
Among the other action items are:
- Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
- Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
- Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
- Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
- Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.
The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine
Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost
Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.
She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.
“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.
Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.
“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.
Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.
“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”
Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.
“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.
Favorable reactions to list
Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”
Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.
Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.
“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement
Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.
The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.
According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.
“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.
The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
Related research
A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.
The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.
Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.
The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”
Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.
“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.
“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”
Among the other action items are:
- Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
- Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
- Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
- Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
- Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.
The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine
Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost
Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.
She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.
“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.
Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.
“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.
Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.
“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”
Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.
“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.
Favorable reactions to list
Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”
Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.
Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.
“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement
Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.
The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.
According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.
“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.
The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
Related research
A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.
The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.
Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.
The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”
Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
30% of docs say they don’t want own kids 5-11 to get COVID vaccine
A Medscape
Among physician respondents who have children in that age group, 30% said they would not want their children to be vaccinated; 9% were unsure. For nurses/advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), more (45%) said they did not want their kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 13% were unsure. Among pharmacists, 31% said they would not get them vaccinated and 9% were unsure.
Clinicians were more likely to want vaccinations for their kids 5-11 than were 510 consumers polled by WebMD at the same time. Overall, 49% of the consumers who had kids that age did not want them to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
On November 2, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, endorsed the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendation that children 5-11 be vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric vaccine. That decision expanded vaccine recommendations to about 28 million children in the United States.
The CDC states that, in clinical trials, the Pfizer vaccine had more than 90% efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in children 5 to 15 years old, and that the immune response in children ages 5-15 equaled the immune response in people 16 to 25 years old.
The Medscape poll, fielded from November 3 to November 11, included 325 physicians, 793 nurses/APRNs, and 151 pharmacists.
How safe is the vaccine?
Clinicians were asked how confident they were that the vaccine is safe for that age group, and 66% of physicians, 52% of nurses/APRNs, and 66% of pharmacists said they were somewhat or very confident.
Among consumers overall in the WebMD poll, 56% said they were confident or somewhat confident that the vaccine is safe in that age group.
Among adolescents and young adults, rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults have been reported. According to the CDC, “[I]n one study, the risk of myocarditis after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech in the week following vaccination was around 54 cases per million doses administered to males ages 12-17 years.”
Known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, including the possible risk for myocarditis or pericarditis, the CDC states.
Across clinician types, women edged out their male counterparts on confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 71% vs 65% among physicians, 55% vs 45% among nurses/APRNs, and 68% vs 60% among pharmacists.
Among both physicians and nurses, younger physicians (under 45) tended to have greater confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 72% vs 64% (physicians), 54% vs 51% (nurses/APRNs), and 71% vs 59% (pharmacists).
The difference in confidence was clear between vaccinated and unvaccinated physicians. All of the unvaccinated physicians who responded to the poll said they had no confidence in the vaccine for kids. Among unvaccinated nurses/APRNs, 2% were somewhat confident in the vaccine for kids under 12.
Knowledge about smaller dosage
The clinicians were asked about whether they were aware, before reading the poll question, that the Pfizer vaccine for children and the proposed Moderna vaccine for children in this age group (5-11) would have a different dosage.
The dose for kids 5-11 is 10 micrograms rather than 30 micrograms for people at least 12 years old. Children 5-11 receive a second dose 21 days or more after their first shot. The formulation comes with an orange cap, and a smaller needle is used.
Knowledge on the lower dose was highest among pharmacists (91% said they knew), followed by physicians (84%) and nurses (79%).
The poll also asked whether the COVID-19 vaccine should be added to the list of childhood immunizations. Responses varied widely and uncertainty was evident.
Notably, female physicians were more likely to say it should be added to the list of immunizations than were their male counterparts: 46% vs 35% (physicians), 26% vs 22% (nurses/APRNs), and 33% vs 30% (pharmacists).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Medscape
Among physician respondents who have children in that age group, 30% said they would not want their children to be vaccinated; 9% were unsure. For nurses/advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), more (45%) said they did not want their kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 13% were unsure. Among pharmacists, 31% said they would not get them vaccinated and 9% were unsure.
Clinicians were more likely to want vaccinations for their kids 5-11 than were 510 consumers polled by WebMD at the same time. Overall, 49% of the consumers who had kids that age did not want them to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
On November 2, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, endorsed the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendation that children 5-11 be vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric vaccine. That decision expanded vaccine recommendations to about 28 million children in the United States.
The CDC states that, in clinical trials, the Pfizer vaccine had more than 90% efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in children 5 to 15 years old, and that the immune response in children ages 5-15 equaled the immune response in people 16 to 25 years old.
The Medscape poll, fielded from November 3 to November 11, included 325 physicians, 793 nurses/APRNs, and 151 pharmacists.
How safe is the vaccine?
Clinicians were asked how confident they were that the vaccine is safe for that age group, and 66% of physicians, 52% of nurses/APRNs, and 66% of pharmacists said they were somewhat or very confident.
Among consumers overall in the WebMD poll, 56% said they were confident or somewhat confident that the vaccine is safe in that age group.
Among adolescents and young adults, rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults have been reported. According to the CDC, “[I]n one study, the risk of myocarditis after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech in the week following vaccination was around 54 cases per million doses administered to males ages 12-17 years.”
Known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, including the possible risk for myocarditis or pericarditis, the CDC states.
Across clinician types, women edged out their male counterparts on confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 71% vs 65% among physicians, 55% vs 45% among nurses/APRNs, and 68% vs 60% among pharmacists.
Among both physicians and nurses, younger physicians (under 45) tended to have greater confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 72% vs 64% (physicians), 54% vs 51% (nurses/APRNs), and 71% vs 59% (pharmacists).
The difference in confidence was clear between vaccinated and unvaccinated physicians. All of the unvaccinated physicians who responded to the poll said they had no confidence in the vaccine for kids. Among unvaccinated nurses/APRNs, 2% were somewhat confident in the vaccine for kids under 12.
Knowledge about smaller dosage
The clinicians were asked about whether they were aware, before reading the poll question, that the Pfizer vaccine for children and the proposed Moderna vaccine for children in this age group (5-11) would have a different dosage.
The dose for kids 5-11 is 10 micrograms rather than 30 micrograms for people at least 12 years old. Children 5-11 receive a second dose 21 days or more after their first shot. The formulation comes with an orange cap, and a smaller needle is used.
Knowledge on the lower dose was highest among pharmacists (91% said they knew), followed by physicians (84%) and nurses (79%).
The poll also asked whether the COVID-19 vaccine should be added to the list of childhood immunizations. Responses varied widely and uncertainty was evident.
Notably, female physicians were more likely to say it should be added to the list of immunizations than were their male counterparts: 46% vs 35% (physicians), 26% vs 22% (nurses/APRNs), and 33% vs 30% (pharmacists).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Medscape
Among physician respondents who have children in that age group, 30% said they would not want their children to be vaccinated; 9% were unsure. For nurses/advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), more (45%) said they did not want their kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 13% were unsure. Among pharmacists, 31% said they would not get them vaccinated and 9% were unsure.
Clinicians were more likely to want vaccinations for their kids 5-11 than were 510 consumers polled by WebMD at the same time. Overall, 49% of the consumers who had kids that age did not want them to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
On November 2, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, endorsed the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendation that children 5-11 be vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric vaccine. That decision expanded vaccine recommendations to about 28 million children in the United States.
The CDC states that, in clinical trials, the Pfizer vaccine had more than 90% efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in children 5 to 15 years old, and that the immune response in children ages 5-15 equaled the immune response in people 16 to 25 years old.
The Medscape poll, fielded from November 3 to November 11, included 325 physicians, 793 nurses/APRNs, and 151 pharmacists.
How safe is the vaccine?
Clinicians were asked how confident they were that the vaccine is safe for that age group, and 66% of physicians, 52% of nurses/APRNs, and 66% of pharmacists said they were somewhat or very confident.
Among consumers overall in the WebMD poll, 56% said they were confident or somewhat confident that the vaccine is safe in that age group.
Among adolescents and young adults, rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults have been reported. According to the CDC, “[I]n one study, the risk of myocarditis after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech in the week following vaccination was around 54 cases per million doses administered to males ages 12-17 years.”
Known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, including the possible risk for myocarditis or pericarditis, the CDC states.
Across clinician types, women edged out their male counterparts on confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 71% vs 65% among physicians, 55% vs 45% among nurses/APRNs, and 68% vs 60% among pharmacists.
Among both physicians and nurses, younger physicians (under 45) tended to have greater confidence in the vaccine’ s safety: 72% vs 64% (physicians), 54% vs 51% (nurses/APRNs), and 71% vs 59% (pharmacists).
The difference in confidence was clear between vaccinated and unvaccinated physicians. All of the unvaccinated physicians who responded to the poll said they had no confidence in the vaccine for kids. Among unvaccinated nurses/APRNs, 2% were somewhat confident in the vaccine for kids under 12.
Knowledge about smaller dosage
The clinicians were asked about whether they were aware, before reading the poll question, that the Pfizer vaccine for children and the proposed Moderna vaccine for children in this age group (5-11) would have a different dosage.
The dose for kids 5-11 is 10 micrograms rather than 30 micrograms for people at least 12 years old. Children 5-11 receive a second dose 21 days or more after their first shot. The formulation comes with an orange cap, and a smaller needle is used.
Knowledge on the lower dose was highest among pharmacists (91% said they knew), followed by physicians (84%) and nurses (79%).
The poll also asked whether the COVID-19 vaccine should be added to the list of childhood immunizations. Responses varied widely and uncertainty was evident.
Notably, female physicians were more likely to say it should be added to the list of immunizations than were their male counterparts: 46% vs 35% (physicians), 26% vs 22% (nurses/APRNs), and 33% vs 30% (pharmacists).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Short-acting opioids needed for withdrawal in U.S. hospitals, say experts
The commentary by Robert A. Kleinman, MD, with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and Sarah E. Wakeman, MD, with the division of general internal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Currently, short-acting opioids are not recommended in the United States for opioid withdrawal symptoms (OWS) management in the hospital, the authors wrote. Instead, withdrawal symptoms are typically treated, followed by methadone or buprenorphine or nonopioid medications, but many patients don’t get enough relief. Undertreated withdrawal can result in patients leaving the hospital against medical advice, which is linked with higher risk of death.
Addiction specialist Elisabeth Poorman, MD, of the University of Illinois Chicago, said in an interview that she agrees it’s time to start shifting the thinking on using short-acting opioids for OWS in hospitals. Use varies greatly by hospital and by clinician, she said.
“It’s time to let evidence guide us and to be flexible,” Dr. Poorman said.
The commentary authors noted that with methadone, patients must wait several hours for maximal symptom reduction, and the full benefits of methadone treatment are not realized until days after initiation.
Rapid initiation of methadone may be feasible in hospitals and has been proposed as an option, but further study is necessary before widespread use, the authors wrote.
Short-acting opioids may address limitations of other opioids
Lofexidine, an alpha-2-adrenergic agonist, is the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for OWS.
“However,” the authors said, “more than half of patients with OWS treated with lofexidine in phase 3 efficacy trials dropped out by day five. Clonidine, another alpha-2-agonist used off label to treat OWS, has similar effects to those of lofexidine. “
Therefore, short-acting opioids may complement methadone and buprenorphine in treating OWS in the hospital by addressing their limitations, the authors wrote.
Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Wakeman also say short-acting opioids may help with starting buprenorphine for patients exposed to fentanyl, because short-acting opioids can relieve withdrawal symptoms while fentanyl is metabolized and excreted.
Supplementation with short-acting opioids within the hospital can relieve withdrawal symptoms and help keep patients comfortable while methadone is titrated to more effective doses for long-term treatment, they wrote.
With short-acting opioids, patients may become more engaged in their care with, for example, a tamper-proof, patient-controlled analgesia pump, which would allow them to have more autonomy in administration of opioids to relieve pain and withdrawal symptoms, the authors wrote.
Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Wakeman noted that many patients who inject drugs already consume short-acting illicit drugs in the hospital, typically in washrooms and smoking areas, so supervised use of short-acting opioids helps eliminate the risk for unwitnessed overdoses.
Barriers to short-acting opioid use
Despite use of short-acting opioids internationally, barriers in the United States include limited prospective, randomized, controlled research on their benefits. There is limited institutional support for such approaches, and concerns and stigma around providing opioids to patients with OUD.
“[M]any institutions have insufficient numbers of providers who are both confident and competent with standard buprenorphine and methadone initiation approaches, a prerequisite before adopting more complex regimens,” the authors wrote.
Short-acting, full-agonist opioids, as a complement to methadone or buprenorphine, is already recommended for inpatients with OUD who are experiencing acute pain.
But the authors argue it should be an option when pain is not present, but methadone or buprenorphine have not provided enough OWS relief.
When short-acting opioids are helpful, according to outside expert
Dr. Poorman agrees and says she has found short-acting opioids simple to use in the hospital and very helpful in two situations.
One is when patients are very clear that they don’t want any medication for opioid use disorder, but they do want to be treated for their acute medical issue.
“I thought that was a fantastic tool to have to demonstrate we’re listening to them and weren’t trying to impose something on them and left the door open to come back when they did want treatment, which many of them did,” Dr. Poorman said.
The second situation is when the patient is uncertain about options but very afraid of precipitated withdrawal from buprenorphine.
She said she then found it easy to switch from those medications to buprenorphine and methadone.
Dr. Poorman described a situation she encountered previously where the patient was injecting heroin several times a day for 30-40 years. He was very clear he wasn’t going to stop injecting heroin, but he needed medical attention. He was willing to get medical attention, but he told his doctor he didn’t want to be uncomfortable while in the hospital.
It was very hard for his doctor to accept relieving his symptoms of withdrawal as part of her job, because she felt as though she was condoning his drug use, Dr. Poorman explained.
But Dr. Poorman said it’s not realistic to think that someone who clearly does not want to stop using is going to stop using because a doctor made that person go through painful withdrawal “that they’ve structured their whole life around avoiding.”
Take-home message
“We need to understand that addiction is very complex. A lot of times people come to us distressed, and it’s a great time to engage them in care but engaging them in care doesn’t mean imposing discomfort or pain on them,” Dr. Poorman noted. Instead, it means “listening to them, helping them be comfortable in a really stressful situation and then letting them know we are always there for them wherever they are on their disease process or recovery journey so that they can come back to us.”
Dr. Wakeman previously served on clinical advisory board for Celero Systems and receives textbook royalties from Springer and author payment from UpToDate. Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Poorman declared no relevant financial relationships.
The commentary by Robert A. Kleinman, MD, with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and Sarah E. Wakeman, MD, with the division of general internal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Currently, short-acting opioids are not recommended in the United States for opioid withdrawal symptoms (OWS) management in the hospital, the authors wrote. Instead, withdrawal symptoms are typically treated, followed by methadone or buprenorphine or nonopioid medications, but many patients don’t get enough relief. Undertreated withdrawal can result in patients leaving the hospital against medical advice, which is linked with higher risk of death.
Addiction specialist Elisabeth Poorman, MD, of the University of Illinois Chicago, said in an interview that she agrees it’s time to start shifting the thinking on using short-acting opioids for OWS in hospitals. Use varies greatly by hospital and by clinician, she said.
“It’s time to let evidence guide us and to be flexible,” Dr. Poorman said.
The commentary authors noted that with methadone, patients must wait several hours for maximal symptom reduction, and the full benefits of methadone treatment are not realized until days after initiation.
Rapid initiation of methadone may be feasible in hospitals and has been proposed as an option, but further study is necessary before widespread use, the authors wrote.
Short-acting opioids may address limitations of other opioids
Lofexidine, an alpha-2-adrenergic agonist, is the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for OWS.
“However,” the authors said, “more than half of patients with OWS treated with lofexidine in phase 3 efficacy trials dropped out by day five. Clonidine, another alpha-2-agonist used off label to treat OWS, has similar effects to those of lofexidine. “
Therefore, short-acting opioids may complement methadone and buprenorphine in treating OWS in the hospital by addressing their limitations, the authors wrote.
Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Wakeman also say short-acting opioids may help with starting buprenorphine for patients exposed to fentanyl, because short-acting opioids can relieve withdrawal symptoms while fentanyl is metabolized and excreted.
Supplementation with short-acting opioids within the hospital can relieve withdrawal symptoms and help keep patients comfortable while methadone is titrated to more effective doses for long-term treatment, they wrote.
With short-acting opioids, patients may become more engaged in their care with, for example, a tamper-proof, patient-controlled analgesia pump, which would allow them to have more autonomy in administration of opioids to relieve pain and withdrawal symptoms, the authors wrote.
Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Wakeman noted that many patients who inject drugs already consume short-acting illicit drugs in the hospital, typically in washrooms and smoking areas, so supervised use of short-acting opioids helps eliminate the risk for unwitnessed overdoses.
Barriers to short-acting opioid use
Despite use of short-acting opioids internationally, barriers in the United States include limited prospective, randomized, controlled research on their benefits. There is limited institutional support for such approaches, and concerns and stigma around providing opioids to patients with OUD.
“[M]any institutions have insufficient numbers of providers who are both confident and competent with standard buprenorphine and methadone initiation approaches, a prerequisite before adopting more complex regimens,” the authors wrote.
Short-acting, full-agonist opioids, as a complement to methadone or buprenorphine, is already recommended for inpatients with OUD who are experiencing acute pain.
But the authors argue it should be an option when pain is not present, but methadone or buprenorphine have not provided enough OWS relief.
When short-acting opioids are helpful, according to outside expert
Dr. Poorman agrees and says she has found short-acting opioids simple to use in the hospital and very helpful in two situations.
One is when patients are very clear that they don’t want any medication for opioid use disorder, but they do want to be treated for their acute medical issue.
“I thought that was a fantastic tool to have to demonstrate we’re listening to them and weren’t trying to impose something on them and left the door open to come back when they did want treatment, which many of them did,” Dr. Poorman said.
The second situation is when the patient is uncertain about options but very afraid of precipitated withdrawal from buprenorphine.
She said she then found it easy to switch from those medications to buprenorphine and methadone.
Dr. Poorman described a situation she encountered previously where the patient was injecting heroin several times a day for 30-40 years. He was very clear he wasn’t going to stop injecting heroin, but he needed medical attention. He was willing to get medical attention, but he told his doctor he didn’t want to be uncomfortable while in the hospital.
It was very hard for his doctor to accept relieving his symptoms of withdrawal as part of her job, because she felt as though she was condoning his drug use, Dr. Poorman explained.
But Dr. Poorman said it’s not realistic to think that someone who clearly does not want to stop using is going to stop using because a doctor made that person go through painful withdrawal “that they’ve structured their whole life around avoiding.”
Take-home message
“We need to understand that addiction is very complex. A lot of times people come to us distressed, and it’s a great time to engage them in care but engaging them in care doesn’t mean imposing discomfort or pain on them,” Dr. Poorman noted. Instead, it means “listening to them, helping them be comfortable in a really stressful situation and then letting them know we are always there for them wherever they are on their disease process or recovery journey so that they can come back to us.”
Dr. Wakeman previously served on clinical advisory board for Celero Systems and receives textbook royalties from Springer and author payment from UpToDate. Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Poorman declared no relevant financial relationships.
The commentary by Robert A. Kleinman, MD, with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and Sarah E. Wakeman, MD, with the division of general internal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Currently, short-acting opioids are not recommended in the United States for opioid withdrawal symptoms (OWS) management in the hospital, the authors wrote. Instead, withdrawal symptoms are typically treated, followed by methadone or buprenorphine or nonopioid medications, but many patients don’t get enough relief. Undertreated withdrawal can result in patients leaving the hospital against medical advice, which is linked with higher risk of death.
Addiction specialist Elisabeth Poorman, MD, of the University of Illinois Chicago, said in an interview that she agrees it’s time to start shifting the thinking on using short-acting opioids for OWS in hospitals. Use varies greatly by hospital and by clinician, she said.
“It’s time to let evidence guide us and to be flexible,” Dr. Poorman said.
The commentary authors noted that with methadone, patients must wait several hours for maximal symptom reduction, and the full benefits of methadone treatment are not realized until days after initiation.
Rapid initiation of methadone may be feasible in hospitals and has been proposed as an option, but further study is necessary before widespread use, the authors wrote.
Short-acting opioids may address limitations of other opioids
Lofexidine, an alpha-2-adrenergic agonist, is the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for OWS.
“However,” the authors said, “more than half of patients with OWS treated with lofexidine in phase 3 efficacy trials dropped out by day five. Clonidine, another alpha-2-agonist used off label to treat OWS, has similar effects to those of lofexidine. “
Therefore, short-acting opioids may complement methadone and buprenorphine in treating OWS in the hospital by addressing their limitations, the authors wrote.
Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Wakeman also say short-acting opioids may help with starting buprenorphine for patients exposed to fentanyl, because short-acting opioids can relieve withdrawal symptoms while fentanyl is metabolized and excreted.
Supplementation with short-acting opioids within the hospital can relieve withdrawal symptoms and help keep patients comfortable while methadone is titrated to more effective doses for long-term treatment, they wrote.
With short-acting opioids, patients may become more engaged in their care with, for example, a tamper-proof, patient-controlled analgesia pump, which would allow them to have more autonomy in administration of opioids to relieve pain and withdrawal symptoms, the authors wrote.
Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Wakeman noted that many patients who inject drugs already consume short-acting illicit drugs in the hospital, typically in washrooms and smoking areas, so supervised use of short-acting opioids helps eliminate the risk for unwitnessed overdoses.
Barriers to short-acting opioid use
Despite use of short-acting opioids internationally, barriers in the United States include limited prospective, randomized, controlled research on their benefits. There is limited institutional support for such approaches, and concerns and stigma around providing opioids to patients with OUD.
“[M]any institutions have insufficient numbers of providers who are both confident and competent with standard buprenorphine and methadone initiation approaches, a prerequisite before adopting more complex regimens,” the authors wrote.
Short-acting, full-agonist opioids, as a complement to methadone or buprenorphine, is already recommended for inpatients with OUD who are experiencing acute pain.
But the authors argue it should be an option when pain is not present, but methadone or buprenorphine have not provided enough OWS relief.
When short-acting opioids are helpful, according to outside expert
Dr. Poorman agrees and says she has found short-acting opioids simple to use in the hospital and very helpful in two situations.
One is when patients are very clear that they don’t want any medication for opioid use disorder, but they do want to be treated for their acute medical issue.
“I thought that was a fantastic tool to have to demonstrate we’re listening to them and weren’t trying to impose something on them and left the door open to come back when they did want treatment, which many of them did,” Dr. Poorman said.
The second situation is when the patient is uncertain about options but very afraid of precipitated withdrawal from buprenorphine.
She said she then found it easy to switch from those medications to buprenorphine and methadone.
Dr. Poorman described a situation she encountered previously where the patient was injecting heroin several times a day for 30-40 years. He was very clear he wasn’t going to stop injecting heroin, but he needed medical attention. He was willing to get medical attention, but he told his doctor he didn’t want to be uncomfortable while in the hospital.
It was very hard for his doctor to accept relieving his symptoms of withdrawal as part of her job, because she felt as though she was condoning his drug use, Dr. Poorman explained.
But Dr. Poorman said it’s not realistic to think that someone who clearly does not want to stop using is going to stop using because a doctor made that person go through painful withdrawal “that they’ve structured their whole life around avoiding.”
Take-home message
“We need to understand that addiction is very complex. A lot of times people come to us distressed, and it’s a great time to engage them in care but engaging them in care doesn’t mean imposing discomfort or pain on them,” Dr. Poorman noted. Instead, it means “listening to them, helping them be comfortable in a really stressful situation and then letting them know we are always there for them wherever they are on their disease process or recovery journey so that they can come back to us.”
Dr. Wakeman previously served on clinical advisory board for Celero Systems and receives textbook royalties from Springer and author payment from UpToDate. Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Poorman declared no relevant financial relationships.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Adding questions in primary care may help predict suicide risk
Craig J. Bryan, PsyD, ABPP, with the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, led the study, published online on Nov. 8, 2021, in Annals of Family Medicine.
The authors cited the urgency highlighted by statistics showing that, from 1999 to 2017, the U.S. suicide rate increased by more than 33% and was particularly high among military personnel and veterans.
Primary care offices are seen as a prime target for prevention efforts as nearly one-half of people who die by suicide in the United States visit a primary care office in the months before their deaths.
A common approach to screening for suicide risk has been to use the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). The first two questions assess the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia in the past 2 weeks. If patients screen positive on those two questions, they are given the remaining seven questions.
A single item – question 9 – asks about how often a patient has “thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way” during the past 2 weeks.
Yet, more that 95% of patients who screen positive on the PHQ-9 suicide risk question do not attempt or die by suicide, the authors noted.
Two methods tested for improving screening
Dr. Bryan and colleagues wanted to assess whether suicide risk screening could be improved in primary care and evaluated two methods.
One was to see whether using any of the other PHQ-9 items could be better than just using item 9 alone to identify the patients who were most likely to attempt suicide in the near future. Researchers found that method was not significantly beneficial. The second was to evaluate the performance of the 16 items on the Suicide Cognitions Scale (SCS), a questionnaire that asks patients to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements that are commonly endorsed by suicidal people.
Patients who were eligible for medical treatment from the Department of Defense medical system were recruited from six large and small military primary care clinics across the United States from July 2015 to August 2018.
Patients answered questions on the PHQ-9 and 16 items from the SCS during routine primary care visits. Evaluators, who were blind to screening results, assessed postbaseline suicide attempts, interrupted attempts and aborted attempts by interviewing patients.
The study included 2,744 primary care patients, ranging from 18 to 89 years of age, with an average age of 40.
Adding at least one question may help
Researchers found that the accuracy of suicide risk screening using the PHQ-9 can be significantly improved by adding one or more questions from the SCS. Three items from SCS contributed most to meaningful improvements in identifying patients who went on to exhibit suicidal behaviors within 30-90 days of screening.
One question was item 16: “I don’t deserve to live another moment.”
Two SCS items improved specificity and positive predictive value without reducing sensitivity, the authors wrote. They are: “It is unbearable when I get this upset” (item 8) and “I can’t imagine anyone being able to withstand this kind of pain” (item 13).
“For example,” the authors wrote, “only 4.1% of patients who screened positive on the PHQ-9 suicide risk item 9 engaged in suicidal behavior within the next 30 days, but when the PHQ-9 suicide risk item 9 was combined with SCS item 13 (the best-performing SCS item), this percentage nearly doubled, to 7.6% of patients.”
Adding one of these SCS items to the PHQ-9 “could provide a simple, accessible, and low-cost method for more accurately identifying primary care patients who require more immediate clinical intervention,” the authors wrote.
Outside expert perspective
Meredith Williamson, PhD, a mental health diagnosis and psychotherapy expert and clinical assistant professor at Texas A&M University, Bryan, said that, though the SCS questions are valuable, neither they nor the PHQ-9 question get to the direct question of whether the person is likely to act on their thoughts and attempt or complete suicide.
“Someone with depression may have thought of wishing they were dead or wishing they weren’t here but that doesn’t always mean they necessarily want to kill themselves,” she said in an interview. “It’s our responsibility as providers to really clarify the meaning of that item.”
Dr. Williamson noted the PHQ-9 is a very accessible method to screen for depression in primary care settings and is a way to catch large numbers of people screening positive, but its shortcomings are well known and additional information is needed.
She said that, in her practice, if a patient screens positive on PHQ-9, clinicians ask more about their intentions, how frequently they occur and whether patients have developed a plan for killing themselves.
The challenge is that “we have yet to predict who is and who is not going to kill themselves.”
Dr. Williamson said she finds the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale a valuable tool used in research settings that looks at prior attempts and current desire to engage in an attempt in more detail.
“It doesn’t stop people from killing themselves, but helps to better understand their suicidal behavior,” she explained.
This project was supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Defense Medical Research and Development Program. Dr. Williamson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bryan is a paid consultant to Oui Therapeutics and Neurostat Analytical Solutions. He is a principal of Anduril, which conducts training workshops and provides mental health consultation focused on suicide prevention and PTSD.
Craig J. Bryan, PsyD, ABPP, with the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, led the study, published online on Nov. 8, 2021, in Annals of Family Medicine.
The authors cited the urgency highlighted by statistics showing that, from 1999 to 2017, the U.S. suicide rate increased by more than 33% and was particularly high among military personnel and veterans.
Primary care offices are seen as a prime target for prevention efforts as nearly one-half of people who die by suicide in the United States visit a primary care office in the months before their deaths.
A common approach to screening for suicide risk has been to use the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). The first two questions assess the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia in the past 2 weeks. If patients screen positive on those two questions, they are given the remaining seven questions.
A single item – question 9 – asks about how often a patient has “thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way” during the past 2 weeks.
Yet, more that 95% of patients who screen positive on the PHQ-9 suicide risk question do not attempt or die by suicide, the authors noted.
Two methods tested for improving screening
Dr. Bryan and colleagues wanted to assess whether suicide risk screening could be improved in primary care and evaluated two methods.
One was to see whether using any of the other PHQ-9 items could be better than just using item 9 alone to identify the patients who were most likely to attempt suicide in the near future. Researchers found that method was not significantly beneficial. The second was to evaluate the performance of the 16 items on the Suicide Cognitions Scale (SCS), a questionnaire that asks patients to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements that are commonly endorsed by suicidal people.
Patients who were eligible for medical treatment from the Department of Defense medical system were recruited from six large and small military primary care clinics across the United States from July 2015 to August 2018.
Patients answered questions on the PHQ-9 and 16 items from the SCS during routine primary care visits. Evaluators, who were blind to screening results, assessed postbaseline suicide attempts, interrupted attempts and aborted attempts by interviewing patients.
The study included 2,744 primary care patients, ranging from 18 to 89 years of age, with an average age of 40.
Adding at least one question may help
Researchers found that the accuracy of suicide risk screening using the PHQ-9 can be significantly improved by adding one or more questions from the SCS. Three items from SCS contributed most to meaningful improvements in identifying patients who went on to exhibit suicidal behaviors within 30-90 days of screening.
One question was item 16: “I don’t deserve to live another moment.”
Two SCS items improved specificity and positive predictive value without reducing sensitivity, the authors wrote. They are: “It is unbearable when I get this upset” (item 8) and “I can’t imagine anyone being able to withstand this kind of pain” (item 13).
“For example,” the authors wrote, “only 4.1% of patients who screened positive on the PHQ-9 suicide risk item 9 engaged in suicidal behavior within the next 30 days, but when the PHQ-9 suicide risk item 9 was combined with SCS item 13 (the best-performing SCS item), this percentage nearly doubled, to 7.6% of patients.”
Adding one of these SCS items to the PHQ-9 “could provide a simple, accessible, and low-cost method for more accurately identifying primary care patients who require more immediate clinical intervention,” the authors wrote.
Outside expert perspective
Meredith Williamson, PhD, a mental health diagnosis and psychotherapy expert and clinical assistant professor at Texas A&M University, Bryan, said that, though the SCS questions are valuable, neither they nor the PHQ-9 question get to the direct question of whether the person is likely to act on their thoughts and attempt or complete suicide.
“Someone with depression may have thought of wishing they were dead or wishing they weren’t here but that doesn’t always mean they necessarily want to kill themselves,” she said in an interview. “It’s our responsibility as providers to really clarify the meaning of that item.”
Dr. Williamson noted the PHQ-9 is a very accessible method to screen for depression in primary care settings and is a way to catch large numbers of people screening positive, but its shortcomings are well known and additional information is needed.
She said that, in her practice, if a patient screens positive on PHQ-9, clinicians ask more about their intentions, how frequently they occur and whether patients have developed a plan for killing themselves.
The challenge is that “we have yet to predict who is and who is not going to kill themselves.”
Dr. Williamson said she finds the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale a valuable tool used in research settings that looks at prior attempts and current desire to engage in an attempt in more detail.
“It doesn’t stop people from killing themselves, but helps to better understand their suicidal behavior,” she explained.
This project was supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Defense Medical Research and Development Program. Dr. Williamson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bryan is a paid consultant to Oui Therapeutics and Neurostat Analytical Solutions. He is a principal of Anduril, which conducts training workshops and provides mental health consultation focused on suicide prevention and PTSD.
Craig J. Bryan, PsyD, ABPP, with the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, led the study, published online on Nov. 8, 2021, in Annals of Family Medicine.
The authors cited the urgency highlighted by statistics showing that, from 1999 to 2017, the U.S. suicide rate increased by more than 33% and was particularly high among military personnel and veterans.
Primary care offices are seen as a prime target for prevention efforts as nearly one-half of people who die by suicide in the United States visit a primary care office in the months before their deaths.
A common approach to screening for suicide risk has been to use the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). The first two questions assess the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia in the past 2 weeks. If patients screen positive on those two questions, they are given the remaining seven questions.
A single item – question 9 – asks about how often a patient has “thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way” during the past 2 weeks.
Yet, more that 95% of patients who screen positive on the PHQ-9 suicide risk question do not attempt or die by suicide, the authors noted.
Two methods tested for improving screening
Dr. Bryan and colleagues wanted to assess whether suicide risk screening could be improved in primary care and evaluated two methods.
One was to see whether using any of the other PHQ-9 items could be better than just using item 9 alone to identify the patients who were most likely to attempt suicide in the near future. Researchers found that method was not significantly beneficial. The second was to evaluate the performance of the 16 items on the Suicide Cognitions Scale (SCS), a questionnaire that asks patients to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements that are commonly endorsed by suicidal people.
Patients who were eligible for medical treatment from the Department of Defense medical system were recruited from six large and small military primary care clinics across the United States from July 2015 to August 2018.
Patients answered questions on the PHQ-9 and 16 items from the SCS during routine primary care visits. Evaluators, who were blind to screening results, assessed postbaseline suicide attempts, interrupted attempts and aborted attempts by interviewing patients.
The study included 2,744 primary care patients, ranging from 18 to 89 years of age, with an average age of 40.
Adding at least one question may help
Researchers found that the accuracy of suicide risk screening using the PHQ-9 can be significantly improved by adding one or more questions from the SCS. Three items from SCS contributed most to meaningful improvements in identifying patients who went on to exhibit suicidal behaviors within 30-90 days of screening.
One question was item 16: “I don’t deserve to live another moment.”
Two SCS items improved specificity and positive predictive value without reducing sensitivity, the authors wrote. They are: “It is unbearable when I get this upset” (item 8) and “I can’t imagine anyone being able to withstand this kind of pain” (item 13).
“For example,” the authors wrote, “only 4.1% of patients who screened positive on the PHQ-9 suicide risk item 9 engaged in suicidal behavior within the next 30 days, but when the PHQ-9 suicide risk item 9 was combined with SCS item 13 (the best-performing SCS item), this percentage nearly doubled, to 7.6% of patients.”
Adding one of these SCS items to the PHQ-9 “could provide a simple, accessible, and low-cost method for more accurately identifying primary care patients who require more immediate clinical intervention,” the authors wrote.
Outside expert perspective
Meredith Williamson, PhD, a mental health diagnosis and psychotherapy expert and clinical assistant professor at Texas A&M University, Bryan, said that, though the SCS questions are valuable, neither they nor the PHQ-9 question get to the direct question of whether the person is likely to act on their thoughts and attempt or complete suicide.
“Someone with depression may have thought of wishing they were dead or wishing they weren’t here but that doesn’t always mean they necessarily want to kill themselves,” she said in an interview. “It’s our responsibility as providers to really clarify the meaning of that item.”
Dr. Williamson noted the PHQ-9 is a very accessible method to screen for depression in primary care settings and is a way to catch large numbers of people screening positive, but its shortcomings are well known and additional information is needed.
She said that, in her practice, if a patient screens positive on PHQ-9, clinicians ask more about their intentions, how frequently they occur and whether patients have developed a plan for killing themselves.
The challenge is that “we have yet to predict who is and who is not going to kill themselves.”
Dr. Williamson said she finds the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale a valuable tool used in research settings that looks at prior attempts and current desire to engage in an attempt in more detail.
“It doesn’t stop people from killing themselves, but helps to better understand their suicidal behavior,” she explained.
This project was supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Defense Medical Research and Development Program. Dr. Williamson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bryan is a paid consultant to Oui Therapeutics and Neurostat Analytical Solutions. He is a principal of Anduril, which conducts training workshops and provides mental health consultation focused on suicide prevention and PTSD.
FROM ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE
Enriched infant formula offers no academic benefit later: Study
Infants who are given nutrient- or supplement-enriched formula milk do not later have higher academic scores as adolescents than those fed with standard formula, a study published online in the BMJ suggests.
One goal of modifying infant formula has been to make long-term cognitive outcomes similar to those for breast-fed infants, the authors noted. Rates for breastfeeding beyond 6 weeks are low in many parts of the world and more than 60% of babies worldwide under the age of 6 months are given formula to replace or supplement breast milk, the paper states.
So far, research has been inconclusive on benefits, though enhancements continue to be added and claims have been made as to their benefits on cognition in advertising. Long-term trials are difficult as researchers move on and participants are lost to follow-up.
In a new study, however, researchers led by Maximiliane L. Verfürden, MsC, with the University College of London’s Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, linked data from seven dormant, randomized, controlled infant formula trials to participants’ performance later as adolescents in the United Kingdom on mandatory national school math and English exams at ages 11 and 16 and found no difference in scores.
They followed 1,763 adolescents who had been participants in the formula trials, which were conducted between 1993 and 2001, and were able to link 91.2% (1,607) to academic records.
They found “no benefit of the infant formula modifications on cognitive outcomes.”
Three types of formula studied
In this study, the researchers discuss three widely available types of modified infant formulas that have been promoted as benefiting cognitive development: formula enriched with nutrients; formula supplemented with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs); and follow-on formula fortified with iron.
In one supplement group the academic results were worse than for those given standard formula. At age 11, children who had been given the LCPUFA-enhanced formula scored lower in both English and math.
“Given the potential associations between the source of LCPUFAs and adverse cognitive outcomes, long-term follow-up of trials testing infant formulas from other sources of LCPUFAs is recommended,” the authors wrote.
Nutrients can harm, editorialist says
Charlotte Wright, BM BCH, MSc, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the Glasgow Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow, who was not part of the study, coauthored an editorial that accompanied the article in the BMJ.
Dr. Wright and nutritionist Ada L. Gargia, PhD, at the University of Glasgow, wrote that nutrients in some formula enhancements can harm and that infant milk trials often have been poorly conducted.
The editorialists point to a large systematic review of formula milk trials published this year in the BMJ by Helfer et al. that found that most were funded by industry.
“Helfer and colleagues’ review found that 80% of studies were at high risk of bias, mainly because of selective reporting, with 92% of abstracts mentioning positive findings, despite only 42% of trials finding statistically significant differences in a stated primary outcome,” they wrote.
Dr. Wright, who runs a specialist feeding clinic for children, said in an interview that the study is valuable in that it has follow-up “to an age when adult cognition can be robustly assessed.”
She noted that the authors say additives that have been shown to be harmful are still routinely added.
“There is now evidence that adding LCPUFAs results in lower cognition and that giving extra iron to healthy children increases their risk of infection and may even slow their growth,” she said.
But advertisements to the contrary are quickly found in an Internet search, she said, even if no specific claims are made for them.
She gave an example of an advertisement for a commonly used enhanced formula, which reads: “Our formulation contains our highest levels of DHA (Omega 3 LCPs) and is enriched with iron to support normal cognitive development.”
The formula studies were done more than 20 years ago, but Dr. Wright said that does not downplay their relevance.
The basic formulation of the formulas hasn’t changed much, she said, and the additives are still present.
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council UCL, Bloomsbury and East London Doctoral Training Partnership and a Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity Research grant. Full disclosures for all authors are available with the full text of the paper. Dr. Wright and Dr. Garcia declared no relevant financial relationships.
Infants who are given nutrient- or supplement-enriched formula milk do not later have higher academic scores as adolescents than those fed with standard formula, a study published online in the BMJ suggests.
One goal of modifying infant formula has been to make long-term cognitive outcomes similar to those for breast-fed infants, the authors noted. Rates for breastfeeding beyond 6 weeks are low in many parts of the world and more than 60% of babies worldwide under the age of 6 months are given formula to replace or supplement breast milk, the paper states.
So far, research has been inconclusive on benefits, though enhancements continue to be added and claims have been made as to their benefits on cognition in advertising. Long-term trials are difficult as researchers move on and participants are lost to follow-up.
In a new study, however, researchers led by Maximiliane L. Verfürden, MsC, with the University College of London’s Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, linked data from seven dormant, randomized, controlled infant formula trials to participants’ performance later as adolescents in the United Kingdom on mandatory national school math and English exams at ages 11 and 16 and found no difference in scores.
They followed 1,763 adolescents who had been participants in the formula trials, which were conducted between 1993 and 2001, and were able to link 91.2% (1,607) to academic records.
They found “no benefit of the infant formula modifications on cognitive outcomes.”
Three types of formula studied
In this study, the researchers discuss three widely available types of modified infant formulas that have been promoted as benefiting cognitive development: formula enriched with nutrients; formula supplemented with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs); and follow-on formula fortified with iron.
In one supplement group the academic results were worse than for those given standard formula. At age 11, children who had been given the LCPUFA-enhanced formula scored lower in both English and math.
“Given the potential associations between the source of LCPUFAs and adverse cognitive outcomes, long-term follow-up of trials testing infant formulas from other sources of LCPUFAs is recommended,” the authors wrote.
Nutrients can harm, editorialist says
Charlotte Wright, BM BCH, MSc, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the Glasgow Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow, who was not part of the study, coauthored an editorial that accompanied the article in the BMJ.
Dr. Wright and nutritionist Ada L. Gargia, PhD, at the University of Glasgow, wrote that nutrients in some formula enhancements can harm and that infant milk trials often have been poorly conducted.
The editorialists point to a large systematic review of formula milk trials published this year in the BMJ by Helfer et al. that found that most were funded by industry.
“Helfer and colleagues’ review found that 80% of studies were at high risk of bias, mainly because of selective reporting, with 92% of abstracts mentioning positive findings, despite only 42% of trials finding statistically significant differences in a stated primary outcome,” they wrote.
Dr. Wright, who runs a specialist feeding clinic for children, said in an interview that the study is valuable in that it has follow-up “to an age when adult cognition can be robustly assessed.”
She noted that the authors say additives that have been shown to be harmful are still routinely added.
“There is now evidence that adding LCPUFAs results in lower cognition and that giving extra iron to healthy children increases their risk of infection and may even slow their growth,” she said.
But advertisements to the contrary are quickly found in an Internet search, she said, even if no specific claims are made for them.
She gave an example of an advertisement for a commonly used enhanced formula, which reads: “Our formulation contains our highest levels of DHA (Omega 3 LCPs) and is enriched with iron to support normal cognitive development.”
The formula studies were done more than 20 years ago, but Dr. Wright said that does not downplay their relevance.
The basic formulation of the formulas hasn’t changed much, she said, and the additives are still present.
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council UCL, Bloomsbury and East London Doctoral Training Partnership and a Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity Research grant. Full disclosures for all authors are available with the full text of the paper. Dr. Wright and Dr. Garcia declared no relevant financial relationships.
Infants who are given nutrient- or supplement-enriched formula milk do not later have higher academic scores as adolescents than those fed with standard formula, a study published online in the BMJ suggests.
One goal of modifying infant formula has been to make long-term cognitive outcomes similar to those for breast-fed infants, the authors noted. Rates for breastfeeding beyond 6 weeks are low in many parts of the world and more than 60% of babies worldwide under the age of 6 months are given formula to replace or supplement breast milk, the paper states.
So far, research has been inconclusive on benefits, though enhancements continue to be added and claims have been made as to their benefits on cognition in advertising. Long-term trials are difficult as researchers move on and participants are lost to follow-up.
In a new study, however, researchers led by Maximiliane L. Verfürden, MsC, with the University College of London’s Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, linked data from seven dormant, randomized, controlled infant formula trials to participants’ performance later as adolescents in the United Kingdom on mandatory national school math and English exams at ages 11 and 16 and found no difference in scores.
They followed 1,763 adolescents who had been participants in the formula trials, which were conducted between 1993 and 2001, and were able to link 91.2% (1,607) to academic records.
They found “no benefit of the infant formula modifications on cognitive outcomes.”
Three types of formula studied
In this study, the researchers discuss three widely available types of modified infant formulas that have been promoted as benefiting cognitive development: formula enriched with nutrients; formula supplemented with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs); and follow-on formula fortified with iron.
In one supplement group the academic results were worse than for those given standard formula. At age 11, children who had been given the LCPUFA-enhanced formula scored lower in both English and math.
“Given the potential associations between the source of LCPUFAs and adverse cognitive outcomes, long-term follow-up of trials testing infant formulas from other sources of LCPUFAs is recommended,” the authors wrote.
Nutrients can harm, editorialist says
Charlotte Wright, BM BCH, MSc, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the Glasgow Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow, who was not part of the study, coauthored an editorial that accompanied the article in the BMJ.
Dr. Wright and nutritionist Ada L. Gargia, PhD, at the University of Glasgow, wrote that nutrients in some formula enhancements can harm and that infant milk trials often have been poorly conducted.
The editorialists point to a large systematic review of formula milk trials published this year in the BMJ by Helfer et al. that found that most were funded by industry.
“Helfer and colleagues’ review found that 80% of studies were at high risk of bias, mainly because of selective reporting, with 92% of abstracts mentioning positive findings, despite only 42% of trials finding statistically significant differences in a stated primary outcome,” they wrote.
Dr. Wright, who runs a specialist feeding clinic for children, said in an interview that the study is valuable in that it has follow-up “to an age when adult cognition can be robustly assessed.”
She noted that the authors say additives that have been shown to be harmful are still routinely added.
“There is now evidence that adding LCPUFAs results in lower cognition and that giving extra iron to healthy children increases their risk of infection and may even slow their growth,” she said.
But advertisements to the contrary are quickly found in an Internet search, she said, even if no specific claims are made for them.
She gave an example of an advertisement for a commonly used enhanced formula, which reads: “Our formulation contains our highest levels of DHA (Omega 3 LCPs) and is enriched with iron to support normal cognitive development.”
The formula studies were done more than 20 years ago, but Dr. Wright said that does not downplay their relevance.
The basic formulation of the formulas hasn’t changed much, she said, and the additives are still present.
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council UCL, Bloomsbury and East London Doctoral Training Partnership and a Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity Research grant. Full disclosures for all authors are available with the full text of the paper. Dr. Wright and Dr. Garcia declared no relevant financial relationships.
FROM THE BMJ
Early trials underway to test mushrooms as COVID treatment
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.
The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.
The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA described the trials.
The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.
“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.
For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.
D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”
Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.
“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.
Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.
“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”
“Not a crazy concept”
Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.
“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”
Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.
“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.
Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.
“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.
As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.
Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.
He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.
“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.
Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”
He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.
“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.
He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»
A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.
The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.
The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA described the trials.
The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.
“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.
For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.
D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”
Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.
“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.
Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.
“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”
“Not a crazy concept”
Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.
“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”
Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.
“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.
Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.
“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.
As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.
Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.
He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.
“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.
Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”
He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.
“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.
He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»
A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.
The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.
The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA described the trials.
The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.
“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.
For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.
D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”
Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.
“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.
Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.
“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”
“Not a crazy concept”
Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.
“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”
Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.
“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.
Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.
“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.
As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.
Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.
He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.
“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.
Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”
He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.
“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.
He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»
A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.
FROM JAMA
Universal depression screening in schools doubles odds for teen treatment
Universal screening for adolescent depression in schools, compared with the usual process of targeting students for referral after observing behaviors, resulted in significantly higher odds of identifying major depressive disorder (MDD) and of starting treatment for it, a study of more than 12,000 students suggests. Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Deepa L. Sekhar, MD, MSc, with the department of pediatrics at Pennsylvania State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pa., and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing the two screening methods from November 2018 to November 2020.
The trial included students in grades 9 through 12 enrolled at any of the 14 participating Pennsylvania public high schools. Researchers compared the two groups using mixed-effects logistic regression.
They found that adolescents in the universal screening intervention group had 5.92 times higher odds (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.07-6.93) of being identified with MDD symptoms, 3.30 times higher odds (95% CI, 2.49-4.38) of the Student Assistance Program (SAP) confirming follow-up needs, and 2.07 times higher odds (95% CI, 1.39-3.10) of starting MDD treatment.
The study comprised 12,909 students, with an average age of 16 years. Of those students, 2,687 (20.8%) were Hispanic; 2,891 (22.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, 5,842 (45.3%) were non-Hispanic White; and 1,489 (11.5%) were multiracial or of other race or ethnicity.
In the universal screening intervention (n = 6,473) all students completed the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). Students who screened positive proceeded to the Student Assistance Program. Students could receive a targeted referral to SAP if they had concerning behavior beyond the PHQ-9.
In the targeted screening group (n = 6,436), students with behaviors prompting concern for MDD were referred to the Student Assistance Program (SAP), mandated in all Pennsylvania schools. The SAP determined follow-up.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed primary care screening in 2009 and again in 2016 for all adolescents 12-18 years old.
However, the study authors wrote, most U.S. adolescents (more than 60%) don’t have routine access to preventive health care, which limits primary care offices’ ability to properly address the growing numbers.
“[S]creening is inconsistent, with inequalities by race and ethnicity and region, and potential worsening with the COVID-19 pandemic,” they noted.
Depression rates see sharp increase
Meanwhile, the prevalence of adolescents reporting MDD symptoms has “nearly doubled in the last decade, increasing from 8.3% in 2008 to 14.4% in 2018.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Children’s Hospital Association recently declared a national emergency in children’s mental health, citing COVID-19’s toll on top of existing challenges.
This study provides further evidence that universal screening is the better approach to identify and treat adolescent depression to save lives, Andres Pumariega, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at University of Florida in Gainesville, told this news organization.
“If you catch these kids early, you can prevent suicide attempts and suicide. You can also prevent complicating costs of care,” he said.
He noted the universal screening removes the potential for bias.
“Relying purely on referral and clinical identification means a lot of kids in minority groups will not be identified and will not be treated accurately. Many clinicians have a problem identifying depression in diverse kids,” he said.
Pushback for universal screening likely
However, he said he has been part of such efforts to implement such programs in Mexico and the United States and said in the Unites States, the political climate will guarantee pushback from having schools more involved in health care and prevention. Recent controversy around COVID-19 vaccines for children illustrates the potential backlash, he said.
Parents often fight such programs as attempts to “label” their children, he said.
“If I have cancer, I sure want to be labeled. A label is used to get them help. We need to find ways to educate parents and support them in facing these issues,” he added.
One concern he has with this intervention is having the SAPs, composed largely of nonclinicians, be the triage point “instead of doing that objectively through objective criteria and by clinicians,” he said. “If we are to have a comprehensive health system where we can serve all kids and manage costs, schools need to be a major part of it.”
School settings offer the chance to see more children, collaborate with teachers and counselors, and integrate results with educational outcomes, he added.
In the study by Sekhar and colleagues, 7 of the 14 schools were classified as urban, with a median size of 370 students.
Researchers noted that the benefit of the universal screening is likely understated because of COVID-19–related school closures during the study period. The closures meant screening wasn’t completed for 7% of students.
The authors concluded that universal screening finds teens living with depression who otherwise would not be found. They said such a program likely works best in schools with strong SAP.
“Adolescents’ consistent contact with schools has been used to support physical health screenings that affect academic success,” the authors wrote. “Major depressive disorder similarly affects academic success, suggesting school-based screening may be especially beneficial.”
In the past 3 years, Dr. Sekhar reported receiving funding from Pfizer through the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program, and a Eugene Washington Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement Award. Full disclosures for coauthors are available in the journal article.
This work was supported in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The use of REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) in this project was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
Universal screening for adolescent depression in schools, compared with the usual process of targeting students for referral after observing behaviors, resulted in significantly higher odds of identifying major depressive disorder (MDD) and of starting treatment for it, a study of more than 12,000 students suggests. Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Deepa L. Sekhar, MD, MSc, with the department of pediatrics at Pennsylvania State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pa., and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing the two screening methods from November 2018 to November 2020.
The trial included students in grades 9 through 12 enrolled at any of the 14 participating Pennsylvania public high schools. Researchers compared the two groups using mixed-effects logistic regression.
They found that adolescents in the universal screening intervention group had 5.92 times higher odds (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.07-6.93) of being identified with MDD symptoms, 3.30 times higher odds (95% CI, 2.49-4.38) of the Student Assistance Program (SAP) confirming follow-up needs, and 2.07 times higher odds (95% CI, 1.39-3.10) of starting MDD treatment.
The study comprised 12,909 students, with an average age of 16 years. Of those students, 2,687 (20.8%) were Hispanic; 2,891 (22.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, 5,842 (45.3%) were non-Hispanic White; and 1,489 (11.5%) were multiracial or of other race or ethnicity.
In the universal screening intervention (n = 6,473) all students completed the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). Students who screened positive proceeded to the Student Assistance Program. Students could receive a targeted referral to SAP if they had concerning behavior beyond the PHQ-9.
In the targeted screening group (n = 6,436), students with behaviors prompting concern for MDD were referred to the Student Assistance Program (SAP), mandated in all Pennsylvania schools. The SAP determined follow-up.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed primary care screening in 2009 and again in 2016 for all adolescents 12-18 years old.
However, the study authors wrote, most U.S. adolescents (more than 60%) don’t have routine access to preventive health care, which limits primary care offices’ ability to properly address the growing numbers.
“[S]creening is inconsistent, with inequalities by race and ethnicity and region, and potential worsening with the COVID-19 pandemic,” they noted.
Depression rates see sharp increase
Meanwhile, the prevalence of adolescents reporting MDD symptoms has “nearly doubled in the last decade, increasing from 8.3% in 2008 to 14.4% in 2018.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Children’s Hospital Association recently declared a national emergency in children’s mental health, citing COVID-19’s toll on top of existing challenges.
This study provides further evidence that universal screening is the better approach to identify and treat adolescent depression to save lives, Andres Pumariega, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at University of Florida in Gainesville, told this news organization.
“If you catch these kids early, you can prevent suicide attempts and suicide. You can also prevent complicating costs of care,” he said.
He noted the universal screening removes the potential for bias.
“Relying purely on referral and clinical identification means a lot of kids in minority groups will not be identified and will not be treated accurately. Many clinicians have a problem identifying depression in diverse kids,” he said.
Pushback for universal screening likely
However, he said he has been part of such efforts to implement such programs in Mexico and the United States and said in the Unites States, the political climate will guarantee pushback from having schools more involved in health care and prevention. Recent controversy around COVID-19 vaccines for children illustrates the potential backlash, he said.
Parents often fight such programs as attempts to “label” their children, he said.
“If I have cancer, I sure want to be labeled. A label is used to get them help. We need to find ways to educate parents and support them in facing these issues,” he added.
One concern he has with this intervention is having the SAPs, composed largely of nonclinicians, be the triage point “instead of doing that objectively through objective criteria and by clinicians,” he said. “If we are to have a comprehensive health system where we can serve all kids and manage costs, schools need to be a major part of it.”
School settings offer the chance to see more children, collaborate with teachers and counselors, and integrate results with educational outcomes, he added.
In the study by Sekhar and colleagues, 7 of the 14 schools were classified as urban, with a median size of 370 students.
Researchers noted that the benefit of the universal screening is likely understated because of COVID-19–related school closures during the study period. The closures meant screening wasn’t completed for 7% of students.
The authors concluded that universal screening finds teens living with depression who otherwise would not be found. They said such a program likely works best in schools with strong SAP.
“Adolescents’ consistent contact with schools has been used to support physical health screenings that affect academic success,” the authors wrote. “Major depressive disorder similarly affects academic success, suggesting school-based screening may be especially beneficial.”
In the past 3 years, Dr. Sekhar reported receiving funding from Pfizer through the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program, and a Eugene Washington Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement Award. Full disclosures for coauthors are available in the journal article.
This work was supported in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The use of REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) in this project was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
Universal screening for adolescent depression in schools, compared with the usual process of targeting students for referral after observing behaviors, resulted in significantly higher odds of identifying major depressive disorder (MDD) and of starting treatment for it, a study of more than 12,000 students suggests. Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Deepa L. Sekhar, MD, MSc, with the department of pediatrics at Pennsylvania State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pa., and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing the two screening methods from November 2018 to November 2020.
The trial included students in grades 9 through 12 enrolled at any of the 14 participating Pennsylvania public high schools. Researchers compared the two groups using mixed-effects logistic regression.
They found that adolescents in the universal screening intervention group had 5.92 times higher odds (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.07-6.93) of being identified with MDD symptoms, 3.30 times higher odds (95% CI, 2.49-4.38) of the Student Assistance Program (SAP) confirming follow-up needs, and 2.07 times higher odds (95% CI, 1.39-3.10) of starting MDD treatment.
The study comprised 12,909 students, with an average age of 16 years. Of those students, 2,687 (20.8%) were Hispanic; 2,891 (22.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, 5,842 (45.3%) were non-Hispanic White; and 1,489 (11.5%) were multiracial or of other race or ethnicity.
In the universal screening intervention (n = 6,473) all students completed the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9). Students who screened positive proceeded to the Student Assistance Program. Students could receive a targeted referral to SAP if they had concerning behavior beyond the PHQ-9.
In the targeted screening group (n = 6,436), students with behaviors prompting concern for MDD were referred to the Student Assistance Program (SAP), mandated in all Pennsylvania schools. The SAP determined follow-up.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed primary care screening in 2009 and again in 2016 for all adolescents 12-18 years old.
However, the study authors wrote, most U.S. adolescents (more than 60%) don’t have routine access to preventive health care, which limits primary care offices’ ability to properly address the growing numbers.
“[S]creening is inconsistent, with inequalities by race and ethnicity and region, and potential worsening with the COVID-19 pandemic,” they noted.
Depression rates see sharp increase
Meanwhile, the prevalence of adolescents reporting MDD symptoms has “nearly doubled in the last decade, increasing from 8.3% in 2008 to 14.4% in 2018.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Children’s Hospital Association recently declared a national emergency in children’s mental health, citing COVID-19’s toll on top of existing challenges.
This study provides further evidence that universal screening is the better approach to identify and treat adolescent depression to save lives, Andres Pumariega, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at University of Florida in Gainesville, told this news organization.
“If you catch these kids early, you can prevent suicide attempts and suicide. You can also prevent complicating costs of care,” he said.
He noted the universal screening removes the potential for bias.
“Relying purely on referral and clinical identification means a lot of kids in minority groups will not be identified and will not be treated accurately. Many clinicians have a problem identifying depression in diverse kids,” he said.
Pushback for universal screening likely
However, he said he has been part of such efforts to implement such programs in Mexico and the United States and said in the Unites States, the political climate will guarantee pushback from having schools more involved in health care and prevention. Recent controversy around COVID-19 vaccines for children illustrates the potential backlash, he said.
Parents often fight such programs as attempts to “label” their children, he said.
“If I have cancer, I sure want to be labeled. A label is used to get them help. We need to find ways to educate parents and support them in facing these issues,” he added.
One concern he has with this intervention is having the SAPs, composed largely of nonclinicians, be the triage point “instead of doing that objectively through objective criteria and by clinicians,” he said. “If we are to have a comprehensive health system where we can serve all kids and manage costs, schools need to be a major part of it.”
School settings offer the chance to see more children, collaborate with teachers and counselors, and integrate results with educational outcomes, he added.
In the study by Sekhar and colleagues, 7 of the 14 schools were classified as urban, with a median size of 370 students.
Researchers noted that the benefit of the universal screening is likely understated because of COVID-19–related school closures during the study period. The closures meant screening wasn’t completed for 7% of students.
The authors concluded that universal screening finds teens living with depression who otherwise would not be found. They said such a program likely works best in schools with strong SAP.
“Adolescents’ consistent contact with schools has been used to support physical health screenings that affect academic success,” the authors wrote. “Major depressive disorder similarly affects academic success, suggesting school-based screening may be especially beneficial.”
In the past 3 years, Dr. Sekhar reported receiving funding from Pfizer through the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program, and a Eugene Washington Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement Award. Full disclosures for coauthors are available in the journal article.
This work was supported in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The use of REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) in this project was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
JAMA NETWORK OPEN
COVID-19 has brought more complex, longer office visits
Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.
The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.
More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.
Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.
In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.
“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’
Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”
The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.
“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.
Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”
She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”
At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity
Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.
As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.
“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’
Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”
“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”
Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.
COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.
“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.
Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.
To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.
Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.
“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
Rethinking workflow
Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.
“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.
“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.
Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.
“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.
Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.
“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.
As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.
That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.
Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.
Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.
The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.
More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.
Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.
In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.
“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’
Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”
The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.
“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.
Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”
She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”
At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity
Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.
As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.
“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’
Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”
“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”
Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.
COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.
“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.
Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.
To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.
Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.
“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
Rethinking workflow
Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.
“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.
“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.
Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.
“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.
Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.
“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.
As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.
That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.
Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.
Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.
The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.
More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.
Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.
In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.
“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’
Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”
The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.
“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.
Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”
She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”
At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity
Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.
As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.
“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’
Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”
“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”
Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.
COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.
“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.
Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.
To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.
Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.
“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
Rethinking workflow
Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.
“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.
“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.
Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.
“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.
Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.
“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.
As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.
That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.
Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.
In and out surgeries become the norm during pandemic
Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.
Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.
Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.
“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery
Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.
“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.
Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.
The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.
A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.
But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.
A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”
Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.
In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.
Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”
Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
Case studies in nephrectomy
While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.
Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.
Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.
They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).
The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).
Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).
Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.
Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.
Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.
Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.
Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.
“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery
Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.
“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.
Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.
The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.
A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.
But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.
A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”
Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.
In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.
Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”
Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
Case studies in nephrectomy
While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.
Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.
Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.
They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).
The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).
Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).
Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.
Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.
Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.
Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.
Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.
“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery
Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.
“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.
Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.
The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.
A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.
But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.
A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”
Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.
In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.
Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”
Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
Case studies in nephrectomy
While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.
Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.
Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.
They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).
The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).
Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).
Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.
Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.
Managing simple febrile seizures without lumbar puncture safe: 15-year study
Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.
Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.
In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.
Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.
Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.
“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.
“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”
The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.
Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.
“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.
Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.
She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.
“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.
In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.
However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.
“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.
It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.
“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”
Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.
The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.
Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.
“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”
Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.
Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.
Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.
In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.
Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.
Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.
“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.
“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”
The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.
Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.
“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.
Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.
She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.
“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.
In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.
However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.
“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.
It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.
“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”
Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.
The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.
Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.
“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”
Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.
Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.
Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.
In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.
Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.
Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.
“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.
“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”
The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.
Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.
“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.
Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.
She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.
“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.
In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.
However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.
“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.
It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.
“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”
Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.
The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.
Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.
“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”
Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.
FROM PEDIATRICS