The Hospitalist

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 surge and pandemic have changed many things in medicine, from how we round on the wards to our increased use of telemedicine in outpatient and inpatient care. This not only changed our interactions with patients, but it also changed our learners’ education. From March to May 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, many Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) fellowship directors were required to adjust clinical responsibilities and scholarly activities. These changes led to unique challenges and learning opportunities for fellows and faculty.

Many fellowships were asked to make changes to patient care for patient/provider safety. Because of low censuses, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital closed their observation unit; as a result, Elise Lu, MD, PhD, PHM fellow, spent time rounding on inpatient units instead of the observation unit. At the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, PHM fellow Brandon Palmer, MD, said his in-person child abuse elective was switched to a virtual elective. Dr. Adam Cohen, chief PHM fellow at Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, offered to care for adult patients and provide telehealth services to pediatric patients, but was never called to participate.

At other programs, fellows experienced greater changes to patient care and systems-based practice. Carlos Plancarte, MD, PHM fellow at Children’s Hospital of Montefiore, New York, provided care for patients up to the age of 30 years as his training hospital began admitting adult patients. Jeremiah Cleveland, MD, PHM fellowship director at Maimonides Children’s Hospital, New York, shared that his fellow’s “away elective” at a pediatric long-term acute care facility was canceled. Dr. Cleveland changed the fellow’s rotation to an infectious disease rotation, which gave her a unique opportunity to evaluate the clinical and nonclinical aspects of pandemic and disaster response.

PHM fellows also experienced changes to their scholarly activities. Matthew Shapiro, MD, a fellow at Anne and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, had to place his quality improvement research on hold and is writing a commentary with his mentors. Marie Pfarr, MD, a fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, changed her plans from a simulation-based research project to studying compassion fatigue. Many fellows had workshops, platform and/or poster presentations at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting and/or the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference, both of which were canceled.

Some fellows felt the pandemic provided them an opportunity to learn communication and interpersonal skills. Dr. Shapiro observed his mentors effectively communicating while managing a crisis. Dr. Plancarte shared that he learned that saying “I don’t know” can be helpful when effectively leading a team.

Despite the changes, the COVID-19 pandemic’s most important lesson was the creation of a supportive community. Across the country, PHM fellows were supported by faculty, and faculty by their fellows. Dr. Plancarte observed how his colleagues united during a challenging situation to support each other. Ritu Patel, MD, PHM fellowship director at Kaiser Oakland shared that her fellowship’s weekly informal meetings helped bring her fellowship’s fellows and faculty closer. Joel Forman, MD, PHM fellowship director and vice chair of education at Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York stressed the importance of camaraderie amongst faculty and learners.

While the pandemic continues, and long after it has passed, fellowship programs have learned that fostering community across training lines is important for both fellows and faculty.

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

The COVID-19 surge and pandemic have changed many things in medicine, from how we round on the wards to our increased use of telemedicine in outpatient and inpatient care. This not only changed our interactions with patients, but it also changed our learners’ education. From March to May 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, many Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) fellowship directors were required to adjust clinical responsibilities and scholarly activities. These changes led to unique challenges and learning opportunities for fellows and faculty.

Many fellowships were asked to make changes to patient care for patient/provider safety. Because of low censuses, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital closed their observation unit; as a result, Elise Lu, MD, PhD, PHM fellow, spent time rounding on inpatient units instead of the observation unit. At the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, PHM fellow Brandon Palmer, MD, said his in-person child abuse elective was switched to a virtual elective. Dr. Adam Cohen, chief PHM fellow at Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, offered to care for adult patients and provide telehealth services to pediatric patients, but was never called to participate.

At other programs, fellows experienced greater changes to patient care and systems-based practice. Carlos Plancarte, MD, PHM fellow at Children’s Hospital of Montefiore, New York, provided care for patients up to the age of 30 years as his training hospital began admitting adult patients. Jeremiah Cleveland, MD, PHM fellowship director at Maimonides Children’s Hospital, New York, shared that his fellow’s “away elective” at a pediatric long-term acute care facility was canceled. Dr. Cleveland changed the fellow’s rotation to an infectious disease rotation, which gave her a unique opportunity to evaluate the clinical and nonclinical aspects of pandemic and disaster response.

PHM fellows also experienced changes to their scholarly activities. Matthew Shapiro, MD, a fellow at Anne and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, had to place his quality improvement research on hold and is writing a commentary with his mentors. Marie Pfarr, MD, a fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, changed her plans from a simulation-based research project to studying compassion fatigue. Many fellows had workshops, platform and/or poster presentations at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting and/or the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference, both of which were canceled.

Some fellows felt the pandemic provided them an opportunity to learn communication and interpersonal skills. Dr. Shapiro observed his mentors effectively communicating while managing a crisis. Dr. Plancarte shared that he learned that saying “I don’t know” can be helpful when effectively leading a team.

Despite the changes, the COVID-19 pandemic’s most important lesson was the creation of a supportive community. Across the country, PHM fellows were supported by faculty, and faculty by their fellows. Dr. Plancarte observed how his colleagues united during a challenging situation to support each other. Ritu Patel, MD, PHM fellowship director at Kaiser Oakland shared that her fellowship’s weekly informal meetings helped bring her fellowship’s fellows and faculty closer. Joel Forman, MD, PHM fellowship director and vice chair of education at Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York stressed the importance of camaraderie amongst faculty and learners.

While the pandemic continues, and long after it has passed, fellowship programs have learned that fostering community across training lines is important for both fellows and faculty.

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

The COVID-19 surge and pandemic have changed many things in medicine, from how we round on the wards to our increased use of telemedicine in outpatient and inpatient care. This not only changed our interactions with patients, but it also changed our learners’ education. From March to May 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, many Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) fellowship directors were required to adjust clinical responsibilities and scholarly activities. These changes led to unique challenges and learning opportunities for fellows and faculty.

Many fellowships were asked to make changes to patient care for patient/provider safety. Because of low censuses, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital closed their observation unit; as a result, Elise Lu, MD, PhD, PHM fellow, spent time rounding on inpatient units instead of the observation unit. At the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, PHM fellow Brandon Palmer, MD, said his in-person child abuse elective was switched to a virtual elective. Dr. Adam Cohen, chief PHM fellow at Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, offered to care for adult patients and provide telehealth services to pediatric patients, but was never called to participate.

At other programs, fellows experienced greater changes to patient care and systems-based practice. Carlos Plancarte, MD, PHM fellow at Children’s Hospital of Montefiore, New York, provided care for patients up to the age of 30 years as his training hospital began admitting adult patients. Jeremiah Cleveland, MD, PHM fellowship director at Maimonides Children’s Hospital, New York, shared that his fellow’s “away elective” at a pediatric long-term acute care facility was canceled. Dr. Cleveland changed the fellow’s rotation to an infectious disease rotation, which gave her a unique opportunity to evaluate the clinical and nonclinical aspects of pandemic and disaster response.

PHM fellows also experienced changes to their scholarly activities. Matthew Shapiro, MD, a fellow at Anne and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, had to place his quality improvement research on hold and is writing a commentary with his mentors. Marie Pfarr, MD, a fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, changed her plans from a simulation-based research project to studying compassion fatigue. Many fellows had workshops, platform and/or poster presentations at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting and/or the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference, both of which were canceled.

Some fellows felt the pandemic provided them an opportunity to learn communication and interpersonal skills. Dr. Shapiro observed his mentors effectively communicating while managing a crisis. Dr. Plancarte shared that he learned that saying “I don’t know” can be helpful when effectively leading a team.

Despite the changes, the COVID-19 pandemic’s most important lesson was the creation of a supportive community. Across the country, PHM fellows were supported by faculty, and faculty by their fellows. Dr. Plancarte observed how his colleagues united during a challenging situation to support each other. Ritu Patel, MD, PHM fellowship director at Kaiser Oakland shared that her fellowship’s weekly informal meetings helped bring her fellowship’s fellows and faculty closer. Joel Forman, MD, PHM fellowship director and vice chair of education at Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York stressed the importance of camaraderie amongst faculty and learners.

While the pandemic continues, and long after it has passed, fellowship programs have learned that fostering community across training lines is important for both fellows and faculty.

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

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Diabetes was by far the most common delayed pediatric presentation in emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a snapshot survey of nearly 2,500 pediatricians in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

There were also nine deaths where delayed presentation was considered a contributing factor, resulting mainly from sepsis and malignancy.

By comparison, over the same 2-week period of the survey there were three child deaths from COVID-19 directly, according to senior study author Shamez Ladhani, MRCPCH, PhD, chair of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU), Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London.

“The unintended consequences of COVID are far greater, in children, than the disease itself. The way we are trying to prevent this is causing more harm than the disease,” he lamented.

One-third of senior U.K. pediatric specialists who responded to the survey reported dealing with so-called emergency delayed presentations in children who they would normally have expected to present much earlier.

After diabetes, the most commonly reported delayed diagnoses were sepsis and child protection issues. Cancer also featured prominently.

“We’ve found that there is great concern that children are not accessing healthcare as they should during lockdown and after,” Dr. Ladhani stressed. “Our emergency departments saw a 50% reduction during the peak, and now it is still 40% less than expected. The problem is improving but it remains.”

The survey findings were recently published online in Archives of Disease in Childhood, by first author Richard M. Lynn, MSc, of the Institute of Child Health, department of epidemiology and public health, University College London Research, and colleagues.
 

New diabetes cases presented very late during lockdown

Over the 2-week reporting period in mid-April 2020, type 1 diabetes was the most frequently reported delayed diagnosis, with 44 cases overall, 23 of which involved diabetic ketoacidosis.

“If you talk to the diabetes specialists, they tell us that generally, most cases of new diabetes arrive late because it has very nonspecific symptoms,” Dr. Ladhani explained.

However, he added, “pediatricians on the frontline know what to expect with diabetes. Those children who would have come in late prior to the pandemic are now arriving very late. Those consultants surveyed were not junior doctors but consultant pediatricians with many years of experience.”

In a recent article looking at pediatric delayed presentations, one patient with diabetes entered intensive care, and the BPSU report recorded one death possibly associated with diabetes, Dr. Ladhani pointed out.

“Pediatricians are worried that children are coming in late. We need to raise awareness that parents need to access healthcare and this message needs to go out now,” he said. “We can’t wait until a second wave. It has to be now because A&E [accident and emergency] attendance is still 40% [lower than] ... expected.”
 

BPSU survey covers over 90% of pediatricians in U.K. and Ireland

After numerous anecdotal reports of delayed presentations in the United Kingdom and abroad, the snapshot survey was conducted as part of routine monthly reports where pediatricians are asked to document any cases of rare conditions seen.

“We had heard stories of delayed presentations, but we wanted to know was this a real problem or just anecdotal?” Dr. Ladhani said.

The regular BPSU survey covers over 90% of U.K.- and Ireland-based pediatric consultants (numbering 4,075). On the back of this established communication, the BPSU decided to gauge the extent of delayed presentations during the peak weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the next 7 days, 2,433 pediatricians, representing 60% of BPSU participants, responded.

“This response rate in 7 days highlights the importance given to the survey by pediatricians ... and the widespread professional concern about delayed presentations,” the authors wrote.

Participants were asked whether they had seen any children during the previous 14 days who, in their opinion, presented later than they would have expected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There’s no one definition for this but these senior clinicians know when something is unusual,” said Dr. Ladhani.

ED attendances were compared with figures for the same period last year. Overall, a total of 32% of 752 pediatricians working in EDs and pediatric assessment units reported witnessing delayed presentations, with 57 (8%) reporting at least three patients with delayed presentation.

“It was clear that those doctors on the frontline were seeing a lot of delayed presentations. Also, neonatologists reported women arriving late for labor, and community physicians said they just weren’t witnessing child protection cases anymore,” added Dr. Ladhani.

Other issues included early discharges following births because of COVID-19 concerns, before feeding had been established, prompting return visits because of feeding problems and dehydration.

The top five delayed diagnoses were diabetes (n = 44), sepsis (n = 21), child protection (n = 14), malignancy (n = 8), and appendicitis (n = 6). There were 10 delayed perinatal presentations.

Of the nine deaths, for which delayed presentation was considered to play a role, three were caused by sepsis, three were caused by new malignancy diagnoses, one was caused by new diagnosis of metabolic disease, and two did not have the cause reported.

The delays in presentation are likely to have been influenced by the U.K. government’s message to “stay at home” during the strict lockdown period, which perhaps was sometimes interpreted too literally, Dr. Ladhani suggested. “It was the right message socially, but not medically.”

Russell Viner, MB, PhD, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said in a statement: “The impact for children is what we call ‘collateral damage’, including long absences from school and delays or interruptions to vital services. We know that parents adhered very strongly to the ‘stay at home’ [message] and we need to say clearly that this doesn’t apply if your child is very sick. Should we experience a second wave or regional outbreaks, it is vital that we get the message out to parents that we want to see unwell children at the earliest possible stage.”

Dr. Ladhani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diabetes was by far the most common delayed pediatric presentation in emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a snapshot survey of nearly 2,500 pediatricians in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

There were also nine deaths where delayed presentation was considered a contributing factor, resulting mainly from sepsis and malignancy.

By comparison, over the same 2-week period of the survey there were three child deaths from COVID-19 directly, according to senior study author Shamez Ladhani, MRCPCH, PhD, chair of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU), Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London.

“The unintended consequences of COVID are far greater, in children, than the disease itself. The way we are trying to prevent this is causing more harm than the disease,” he lamented.

One-third of senior U.K. pediatric specialists who responded to the survey reported dealing with so-called emergency delayed presentations in children who they would normally have expected to present much earlier.

After diabetes, the most commonly reported delayed diagnoses were sepsis and child protection issues. Cancer also featured prominently.

“We’ve found that there is great concern that children are not accessing healthcare as they should during lockdown and after,” Dr. Ladhani stressed. “Our emergency departments saw a 50% reduction during the peak, and now it is still 40% less than expected. The problem is improving but it remains.”

The survey findings were recently published online in Archives of Disease in Childhood, by first author Richard M. Lynn, MSc, of the Institute of Child Health, department of epidemiology and public health, University College London Research, and colleagues.
 

New diabetes cases presented very late during lockdown

Over the 2-week reporting period in mid-April 2020, type 1 diabetes was the most frequently reported delayed diagnosis, with 44 cases overall, 23 of which involved diabetic ketoacidosis.

“If you talk to the diabetes specialists, they tell us that generally, most cases of new diabetes arrive late because it has very nonspecific symptoms,” Dr. Ladhani explained.

However, he added, “pediatricians on the frontline know what to expect with diabetes. Those children who would have come in late prior to the pandemic are now arriving very late. Those consultants surveyed were not junior doctors but consultant pediatricians with many years of experience.”

In a recent article looking at pediatric delayed presentations, one patient with diabetes entered intensive care, and the BPSU report recorded one death possibly associated with diabetes, Dr. Ladhani pointed out.

“Pediatricians are worried that children are coming in late. We need to raise awareness that parents need to access healthcare and this message needs to go out now,” he said. “We can’t wait until a second wave. It has to be now because A&E [accident and emergency] attendance is still 40% [lower than] ... expected.”
 

BPSU survey covers over 90% of pediatricians in U.K. and Ireland

After numerous anecdotal reports of delayed presentations in the United Kingdom and abroad, the snapshot survey was conducted as part of routine monthly reports where pediatricians are asked to document any cases of rare conditions seen.

“We had heard stories of delayed presentations, but we wanted to know was this a real problem or just anecdotal?” Dr. Ladhani said.

The regular BPSU survey covers over 90% of U.K.- and Ireland-based pediatric consultants (numbering 4,075). On the back of this established communication, the BPSU decided to gauge the extent of delayed presentations during the peak weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the next 7 days, 2,433 pediatricians, representing 60% of BPSU participants, responded.

“This response rate in 7 days highlights the importance given to the survey by pediatricians ... and the widespread professional concern about delayed presentations,” the authors wrote.

Participants were asked whether they had seen any children during the previous 14 days who, in their opinion, presented later than they would have expected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There’s no one definition for this but these senior clinicians know when something is unusual,” said Dr. Ladhani.

ED attendances were compared with figures for the same period last year. Overall, a total of 32% of 752 pediatricians working in EDs and pediatric assessment units reported witnessing delayed presentations, with 57 (8%) reporting at least three patients with delayed presentation.

“It was clear that those doctors on the frontline were seeing a lot of delayed presentations. Also, neonatologists reported women arriving late for labor, and community physicians said they just weren’t witnessing child protection cases anymore,” added Dr. Ladhani.

Other issues included early discharges following births because of COVID-19 concerns, before feeding had been established, prompting return visits because of feeding problems and dehydration.

The top five delayed diagnoses were diabetes (n = 44), sepsis (n = 21), child protection (n = 14), malignancy (n = 8), and appendicitis (n = 6). There were 10 delayed perinatal presentations.

Of the nine deaths, for which delayed presentation was considered to play a role, three were caused by sepsis, three were caused by new malignancy diagnoses, one was caused by new diagnosis of metabolic disease, and two did not have the cause reported.

The delays in presentation are likely to have been influenced by the U.K. government’s message to “stay at home” during the strict lockdown period, which perhaps was sometimes interpreted too literally, Dr. Ladhani suggested. “It was the right message socially, but not medically.”

Russell Viner, MB, PhD, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said in a statement: “The impact for children is what we call ‘collateral damage’, including long absences from school and delays or interruptions to vital services. We know that parents adhered very strongly to the ‘stay at home’ [message] and we need to say clearly that this doesn’t apply if your child is very sick. Should we experience a second wave or regional outbreaks, it is vital that we get the message out to parents that we want to see unwell children at the earliest possible stage.”

Dr. Ladhani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diabetes was by far the most common delayed pediatric presentation in emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a snapshot survey of nearly 2,500 pediatricians in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

There were also nine deaths where delayed presentation was considered a contributing factor, resulting mainly from sepsis and malignancy.

By comparison, over the same 2-week period of the survey there were three child deaths from COVID-19 directly, according to senior study author Shamez Ladhani, MRCPCH, PhD, chair of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU), Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London.

“The unintended consequences of COVID are far greater, in children, than the disease itself. The way we are trying to prevent this is causing more harm than the disease,” he lamented.

One-third of senior U.K. pediatric specialists who responded to the survey reported dealing with so-called emergency delayed presentations in children who they would normally have expected to present much earlier.

After diabetes, the most commonly reported delayed diagnoses were sepsis and child protection issues. Cancer also featured prominently.

“We’ve found that there is great concern that children are not accessing healthcare as they should during lockdown and after,” Dr. Ladhani stressed. “Our emergency departments saw a 50% reduction during the peak, and now it is still 40% less than expected. The problem is improving but it remains.”

The survey findings were recently published online in Archives of Disease in Childhood, by first author Richard M. Lynn, MSc, of the Institute of Child Health, department of epidemiology and public health, University College London Research, and colleagues.
 

New diabetes cases presented very late during lockdown

Over the 2-week reporting period in mid-April 2020, type 1 diabetes was the most frequently reported delayed diagnosis, with 44 cases overall, 23 of which involved diabetic ketoacidosis.

“If you talk to the diabetes specialists, they tell us that generally, most cases of new diabetes arrive late because it has very nonspecific symptoms,” Dr. Ladhani explained.

However, he added, “pediatricians on the frontline know what to expect with diabetes. Those children who would have come in late prior to the pandemic are now arriving very late. Those consultants surveyed were not junior doctors but consultant pediatricians with many years of experience.”

In a recent article looking at pediatric delayed presentations, one patient with diabetes entered intensive care, and the BPSU report recorded one death possibly associated with diabetes, Dr. Ladhani pointed out.

“Pediatricians are worried that children are coming in late. We need to raise awareness that parents need to access healthcare and this message needs to go out now,” he said. “We can’t wait until a second wave. It has to be now because A&E [accident and emergency] attendance is still 40% [lower than] ... expected.”
 

BPSU survey covers over 90% of pediatricians in U.K. and Ireland

After numerous anecdotal reports of delayed presentations in the United Kingdom and abroad, the snapshot survey was conducted as part of routine monthly reports where pediatricians are asked to document any cases of rare conditions seen.

“We had heard stories of delayed presentations, but we wanted to know was this a real problem or just anecdotal?” Dr. Ladhani said.

The regular BPSU survey covers over 90% of U.K.- and Ireland-based pediatric consultants (numbering 4,075). On the back of this established communication, the BPSU decided to gauge the extent of delayed presentations during the peak weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the next 7 days, 2,433 pediatricians, representing 60% of BPSU participants, responded.

“This response rate in 7 days highlights the importance given to the survey by pediatricians ... and the widespread professional concern about delayed presentations,” the authors wrote.

Participants were asked whether they had seen any children during the previous 14 days who, in their opinion, presented later than they would have expected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There’s no one definition for this but these senior clinicians know when something is unusual,” said Dr. Ladhani.

ED attendances were compared with figures for the same period last year. Overall, a total of 32% of 752 pediatricians working in EDs and pediatric assessment units reported witnessing delayed presentations, with 57 (8%) reporting at least three patients with delayed presentation.

“It was clear that those doctors on the frontline were seeing a lot of delayed presentations. Also, neonatologists reported women arriving late for labor, and community physicians said they just weren’t witnessing child protection cases anymore,” added Dr. Ladhani.

Other issues included early discharges following births because of COVID-19 concerns, before feeding had been established, prompting return visits because of feeding problems and dehydration.

The top five delayed diagnoses were diabetes (n = 44), sepsis (n = 21), child protection (n = 14), malignancy (n = 8), and appendicitis (n = 6). There were 10 delayed perinatal presentations.

Of the nine deaths, for which delayed presentation was considered to play a role, three were caused by sepsis, three were caused by new malignancy diagnoses, one was caused by new diagnosis of metabolic disease, and two did not have the cause reported.

The delays in presentation are likely to have been influenced by the U.K. government’s message to “stay at home” during the strict lockdown period, which perhaps was sometimes interpreted too literally, Dr. Ladhani suggested. “It was the right message socially, but not medically.”

Russell Viner, MB, PhD, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said in a statement: “The impact for children is what we call ‘collateral damage’, including long absences from school and delays or interruptions to vital services. We know that parents adhered very strongly to the ‘stay at home’ [message] and we need to say clearly that this doesn’t apply if your child is very sick. Should we experience a second wave or regional outbreaks, it is vital that we get the message out to parents that we want to see unwell children at the earliest possible stage.”

Dr. Ladhani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: National guidelines recommend that surgical prophylactic antimicrobials be initiated within 1 hour prior to incision and discontinued 24 hours postoperatively. However, the risks and benefits of longer duration of antimicrobials are uncertain.

However, the odds of postoperative AKI increased with each additional day of prophylaxis (adjusted odds ratios, 1.82; 95% confidence interval,1.54-2.16 and aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.27-2.53) with longer than 72 hours prophylaxis for cardiac and noncardiac surgery, respectively). Similarly, C. difficile infections increased with each additional day beyond 24 hours (aOR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.40-5.55 with more than 72 hours of use).

Bottom line: Each day of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis beyond 24 hours increases the risk for postoperative AKI or C. difficile infection without reducing the risk of surgical site infection.

Citation: Branch-Elliman W et al. Association of duration and type of surgical prophylaxis with antimicrobial-associated adverse events. JAMA Surg. 2019 Apr 24. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0569.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: National guidelines recommend that surgical prophylactic antimicrobials be initiated within 1 hour prior to incision and discontinued 24 hours postoperatively. However, the risks and benefits of longer duration of antimicrobials are uncertain.

However, the odds of postoperative AKI increased with each additional day of prophylaxis (adjusted odds ratios, 1.82; 95% confidence interval,1.54-2.16 and aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.27-2.53) with longer than 72 hours prophylaxis for cardiac and noncardiac surgery, respectively). Similarly, C. difficile infections increased with each additional day beyond 24 hours (aOR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.40-5.55 with more than 72 hours of use).

Bottom line: Each day of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis beyond 24 hours increases the risk for postoperative AKI or C. difficile infection without reducing the risk of surgical site infection.

Citation: Branch-Elliman W et al. Association of duration and type of surgical prophylaxis with antimicrobial-associated adverse events. JAMA Surg. 2019 Apr 24. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0569.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: National guidelines recommend that surgical prophylactic antimicrobials be initiated within 1 hour prior to incision and discontinued 24 hours postoperatively. However, the risks and benefits of longer duration of antimicrobials are uncertain.

However, the odds of postoperative AKI increased with each additional day of prophylaxis (adjusted odds ratios, 1.82; 95% confidence interval,1.54-2.16 and aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.27-2.53) with longer than 72 hours prophylaxis for cardiac and noncardiac surgery, respectively). Similarly, C. difficile infections increased with each additional day beyond 24 hours (aOR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.40-5.55 with more than 72 hours of use).

Bottom line: Each day of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis beyond 24 hours increases the risk for postoperative AKI or C. difficile infection without reducing the risk of surgical site infection.

Citation: Branch-Elliman W et al. Association of duration and type of surgical prophylaxis with antimicrobial-associated adverse events. JAMA Surg. 2019 Apr 24. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0569.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

A recent teleconference brought together an ad hoc panel of pediatric hospitalists, with more than 100 diverse voices discussing whether there ought to be an additional professional recognition or designation for the subspecialty, apart from the new pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) board certification that was launched in 2019.

The heterogeneity of PHM was on display during the discussion, as participants included university-based pediatric hospitalists and those from community hospitals, physicians trained in combined medicine and pediatrics or in family medicine, doctors who completed a general pediatric residency before going straight into PHM, niche practitioners such as newborn hospitalists, trainees, and a small but growing number of graduates of PHM fellowship programs. There are 61 PHM fellowships, and these programs graduate approximately 70 new fellows per year.

Although a route to some kind of professional designation for PHM – separate from board certification – was the centerpiece of the conference call, there is no proposal actively under consideration for developing such a designation, said Weijen W. Chang, MD, FAAP, SFHM, chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts–Baystate Campus.

Who might develop such a proposal? “The hope is that the three major professional societies involved in pediatric hospital medicine – the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association – would jointly develop such a designation,” Dr. Chang said. However, it is not clear whether the three societies could agree on this. An online survey of 551 pediatric hospitalists, shared during the conference call, found that the majority would like to see some kind of alternate designation.

The reality of the boards

The pediatric subspecialty of PHM was recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties in 2015 following a petition by a group of PHM leaders seeking a way to credential their unique skill set. The first PHM board certification exam was offered by the American Board of Pediatrics on Nov. 12, 2019, with 1,491 hospitalists sitting for the exam and 84% passing. An estimated 4,000 pediatric hospitalists currently work in the field.

Certification as a subspecialty typically requires completing a fellowship, but new subspecialties often offer a “practice pathway” allowing those who already have experience working in the field to sit for the exam. A PHM practice pathway, and a combined fellowship and experience option for those whose fellowship training was less than 2 years, was offered for last year’s exam and will be offered again in 2021 and 2023. After that, board certification will only be available to graduates of recognized fellowships.

But concerns began to emerge last summer in advance of ABM’s initial PHM board exam, when some applicants were told that they weren’t eligible to sit for it, said H. Barrett Fromme, MD, associate dean for faculty development in medical education and section chief for pediatric hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. She also chairs the section of hospital medicine for the AAP.

Concerns including unintended gender bias against women, such as those hospitalists whose training is interrupted for maternity leave, were raised in a petition to ABP. The board promptly responded that gender bias was not supported by the facts, although its response did not account for selection bias in the data. But the ABP removed its practice interruption criteria.^1,2

There are various reasons why a pediatric hospitalist might not be able or willing to pursue a 2-year fellowship or otherwise qualify for certification, Dr. Fromme said, including time and cost. For some, the practice pathway’s requirements, including a minimum number of hours worked in pediatrics in the previous 4 years, may be impossible to meet. Pediatric hospitalists boarded in family medicine are not eligible.

For hospitalists who can’t achieve board certification, what might that mean in terms of their future salary, employment opportunities, reimbursement, other career goals? Might they find themselves unable to qualify for PHM jobs at some university-based medical centers? The answers are not yet known.

What might self-designation look like?

PHM is distinct from adult hospital medicine by virtue of its designation as a board-certified subspecialty. But it can look to the broader HM field for examples of designations that bestow a kind of professional recognition, Dr. Chang said. These include SHM’s merit-based Fellow in Hospital Medicine program and the American Board of Medical Specialties’ Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine, a pathway for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine, he said.

But PHM self-designation is not necessarily a pathway to hospital privileges. “If we build it, will they come? If they come, will it mean anything to them? That’s the million-dollar question?” Dr. Chang said.

Hospitalists need to appreciate that this issue is important to all three PHM professional societies, SHM, AAP, and APA, Dr. Fromme said. “We are concerned about how to support all of our members – certified, noncertified, nonphysician. Alternate designation is one idea, but we need time to understand it. We need a lot more conversations and a lot of people thinking about it.”

Dr. Fromme is part of the Council on Pediatric Hospital Medicine, a small circle of leaders of PHM interest groups within the three professional associations. It meets quarterly and will be reviewing the results of the conference call.

“I personally think we don’t understand the scope of the problem or the needs of pediatric hospitalists who are not able to sit for boards or pursue a fellowship,” she said. “We have empathy and concern for our colleagues who can’t take the boards. We don’t want them to feel excluded, and that includes advanced practice nurses and residents. But does an alternative designation actually provide what people think it provides?”

There are other ways to demonstrate that professionals are engaged with and serious about developing their practice. If they are looking to better themselves at quality improvement, leadership, education, and other elements of PHM practice, the associations can endeavor to provide more educational opportunities, Dr. Fromme said. “But if it’s about how they look as a candidate for hire, relative to board-certified candidates, that’s a different beast, and we need to think about what can help them the most.”
 

References

1. American Board of Pediatrics, Response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Petition. 2019 Aug 20. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf.

2. Chang WW et al. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90.

A recent teleconference brought together an ad hoc panel of pediatric hospitalists, with more than 100 diverse voices discussing whether there ought to be an additional professional recognition or designation for the subspecialty, apart from the new pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) board certification that was launched in 2019.

The heterogeneity of PHM was on display during the discussion, as participants included university-based pediatric hospitalists and those from community hospitals, physicians trained in combined medicine and pediatrics or in family medicine, doctors who completed a general pediatric residency before going straight into PHM, niche practitioners such as newborn hospitalists, trainees, and a small but growing number of graduates of PHM fellowship programs. There are 61 PHM fellowships, and these programs graduate approximately 70 new fellows per year.

Although a route to some kind of professional designation for PHM – separate from board certification – was the centerpiece of the conference call, there is no proposal actively under consideration for developing such a designation, said Weijen W. Chang, MD, FAAP, SFHM, chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts–Baystate Campus.

Who might develop such a proposal? “The hope is that the three major professional societies involved in pediatric hospital medicine – the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association – would jointly develop such a designation,” Dr. Chang said. However, it is not clear whether the three societies could agree on this. An online survey of 551 pediatric hospitalists, shared during the conference call, found that the majority would like to see some kind of alternate designation.

The reality of the boards

The pediatric subspecialty of PHM was recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties in 2015 following a petition by a group of PHM leaders seeking a way to credential their unique skill set. The first PHM board certification exam was offered by the American Board of Pediatrics on Nov. 12, 2019, with 1,491 hospitalists sitting for the exam and 84% passing. An estimated 4,000 pediatric hospitalists currently work in the field.

Certification as a subspecialty typically requires completing a fellowship, but new subspecialties often offer a “practice pathway” allowing those who already have experience working in the field to sit for the exam. A PHM practice pathway, and a combined fellowship and experience option for those whose fellowship training was less than 2 years, was offered for last year’s exam and will be offered again in 2021 and 2023. After that, board certification will only be available to graduates of recognized fellowships.

But concerns began to emerge last summer in advance of ABM’s initial PHM board exam, when some applicants were told that they weren’t eligible to sit for it, said H. Barrett Fromme, MD, associate dean for faculty development in medical education and section chief for pediatric hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. She also chairs the section of hospital medicine for the AAP.

Concerns including unintended gender bias against women, such as those hospitalists whose training is interrupted for maternity leave, were raised in a petition to ABP. The board promptly responded that gender bias was not supported by the facts, although its response did not account for selection bias in the data. But the ABP removed its practice interruption criteria.^1,2

There are various reasons why a pediatric hospitalist might not be able or willing to pursue a 2-year fellowship or otherwise qualify for certification, Dr. Fromme said, including time and cost. For some, the practice pathway’s requirements, including a minimum number of hours worked in pediatrics in the previous 4 years, may be impossible to meet. Pediatric hospitalists boarded in family medicine are not eligible.

For hospitalists who can’t achieve board certification, what might that mean in terms of their future salary, employment opportunities, reimbursement, other career goals? Might they find themselves unable to qualify for PHM jobs at some university-based medical centers? The answers are not yet known.

What might self-designation look like?

PHM is distinct from adult hospital medicine by virtue of its designation as a board-certified subspecialty. But it can look to the broader HM field for examples of designations that bestow a kind of professional recognition, Dr. Chang said. These include SHM’s merit-based Fellow in Hospital Medicine program and the American Board of Medical Specialties’ Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine, a pathway for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine, he said.

But PHM self-designation is not necessarily a pathway to hospital privileges. “If we build it, will they come? If they come, will it mean anything to them? That’s the million-dollar question?” Dr. Chang said.

Hospitalists need to appreciate that this issue is important to all three PHM professional societies, SHM, AAP, and APA, Dr. Fromme said. “We are concerned about how to support all of our members – certified, noncertified, nonphysician. Alternate designation is one idea, but we need time to understand it. We need a lot more conversations and a lot of people thinking about it.”

Dr. Fromme is part of the Council on Pediatric Hospital Medicine, a small circle of leaders of PHM interest groups within the three professional associations. It meets quarterly and will be reviewing the results of the conference call.

“I personally think we don’t understand the scope of the problem or the needs of pediatric hospitalists who are not able to sit for boards or pursue a fellowship,” she said. “We have empathy and concern for our colleagues who can’t take the boards. We don’t want them to feel excluded, and that includes advanced practice nurses and residents. But does an alternative designation actually provide what people think it provides?”

There are other ways to demonstrate that professionals are engaged with and serious about developing their practice. If they are looking to better themselves at quality improvement, leadership, education, and other elements of PHM practice, the associations can endeavor to provide more educational opportunities, Dr. Fromme said. “But if it’s about how they look as a candidate for hire, relative to board-certified candidates, that’s a different beast, and we need to think about what can help them the most.”
 

References

1. American Board of Pediatrics, Response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Petition. 2019 Aug 20. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf.

2. Chang WW et al. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90.

A recent teleconference brought together an ad hoc panel of pediatric hospitalists, with more than 100 diverse voices discussing whether there ought to be an additional professional recognition or designation for the subspecialty, apart from the new pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) board certification that was launched in 2019.

The heterogeneity of PHM was on display during the discussion, as participants included university-based pediatric hospitalists and those from community hospitals, physicians trained in combined medicine and pediatrics or in family medicine, doctors who completed a general pediatric residency before going straight into PHM, niche practitioners such as newborn hospitalists, trainees, and a small but growing number of graduates of PHM fellowship programs. There are 61 PHM fellowships, and these programs graduate approximately 70 new fellows per year.

Although a route to some kind of professional designation for PHM – separate from board certification – was the centerpiece of the conference call, there is no proposal actively under consideration for developing such a designation, said Weijen W. Chang, MD, FAAP, SFHM, chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts–Baystate Campus.

Who might develop such a proposal? “The hope is that the three major professional societies involved in pediatric hospital medicine – the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association – would jointly develop such a designation,” Dr. Chang said. However, it is not clear whether the three societies could agree on this. An online survey of 551 pediatric hospitalists, shared during the conference call, found that the majority would like to see some kind of alternate designation.

The reality of the boards

The pediatric subspecialty of PHM was recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties in 2015 following a petition by a group of PHM leaders seeking a way to credential their unique skill set. The first PHM board certification exam was offered by the American Board of Pediatrics on Nov. 12, 2019, with 1,491 hospitalists sitting for the exam and 84% passing. An estimated 4,000 pediatric hospitalists currently work in the field.

Certification as a subspecialty typically requires completing a fellowship, but new subspecialties often offer a “practice pathway” allowing those who already have experience working in the field to sit for the exam. A PHM practice pathway, and a combined fellowship and experience option for those whose fellowship training was less than 2 years, was offered for last year’s exam and will be offered again in 2021 and 2023. After that, board certification will only be available to graduates of recognized fellowships.

But concerns began to emerge last summer in advance of ABM’s initial PHM board exam, when some applicants were told that they weren’t eligible to sit for it, said H. Barrett Fromme, MD, associate dean for faculty development in medical education and section chief for pediatric hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. She also chairs the section of hospital medicine for the AAP.

Concerns including unintended gender bias against women, such as those hospitalists whose training is interrupted for maternity leave, were raised in a petition to ABP. The board promptly responded that gender bias was not supported by the facts, although its response did not account for selection bias in the data. But the ABP removed its practice interruption criteria.^1,2

There are various reasons why a pediatric hospitalist might not be able or willing to pursue a 2-year fellowship or otherwise qualify for certification, Dr. Fromme said, including time and cost. For some, the practice pathway’s requirements, including a minimum number of hours worked in pediatrics in the previous 4 years, may be impossible to meet. Pediatric hospitalists boarded in family medicine are not eligible.

For hospitalists who can’t achieve board certification, what might that mean in terms of their future salary, employment opportunities, reimbursement, other career goals? Might they find themselves unable to qualify for PHM jobs at some university-based medical centers? The answers are not yet known.

What might self-designation look like?

PHM is distinct from adult hospital medicine by virtue of its designation as a board-certified subspecialty. But it can look to the broader HM field for examples of designations that bestow a kind of professional recognition, Dr. Chang said. These include SHM’s merit-based Fellow in Hospital Medicine program and the American Board of Medical Specialties’ Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine, a pathway for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine, he said.

But PHM self-designation is not necessarily a pathway to hospital privileges. “If we build it, will they come? If they come, will it mean anything to them? That’s the million-dollar question?” Dr. Chang said.

Hospitalists need to appreciate that this issue is important to all three PHM professional societies, SHM, AAP, and APA, Dr. Fromme said. “We are concerned about how to support all of our members – certified, noncertified, nonphysician. Alternate designation is one idea, but we need time to understand it. We need a lot more conversations and a lot of people thinking about it.”

Dr. Fromme is part of the Council on Pediatric Hospital Medicine, a small circle of leaders of PHM interest groups within the three professional associations. It meets quarterly and will be reviewing the results of the conference call.

“I personally think we don’t understand the scope of the problem or the needs of pediatric hospitalists who are not able to sit for boards or pursue a fellowship,” she said. “We have empathy and concern for our colleagues who can’t take the boards. We don’t want them to feel excluded, and that includes advanced practice nurses and residents. But does an alternative designation actually provide what people think it provides?”

There are other ways to demonstrate that professionals are engaged with and serious about developing their practice. If they are looking to better themselves at quality improvement, leadership, education, and other elements of PHM practice, the associations can endeavor to provide more educational opportunities, Dr. Fromme said. “But if it’s about how they look as a candidate for hire, relative to board-certified candidates, that’s a different beast, and we need to think about what can help them the most.”
 

References

1. American Board of Pediatrics, Response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Petition. 2019 Aug 20. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf.

2. Chang WW et al. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90.

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.