The Hospitalist

In a time of tremendous uncertainty, there is one trend that seems consistent year over year – the undisputed value of hospitalists. In the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partnered with the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity. The Report provides resounding evidence that hospitalists continue to be compensated at rising rates. This may be driven by both the continued demand-supply mismatch and a recognition of the overall value they generate rather than strictly the volume of their productivity.

In 2020, the median total compensation nationally for adult hospitalists (internal medicine and family medicine) was $307,633, representing an increase of over 6% from the 2018 Survey (see Figure 1).

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

However, the total compensation continues to be lower for academic hospitalists, with a median compensation difference of approximately $70,000 compared to their non-academic colleagues. Some of this sizable variance is offset by the fact that academic HMGs receive more in employee benefits packages than non-academic groups – a difference in median value of $10,500. Ideally, academic hospitalist compensation models should appropriately reflect and value their work efforts toward the tripartite academic mission of clinical care, education, and research. It would be valuable for future surveys to define and measure academic production in order to develop national standards for compensation models that recognize these non-billable forms of productivity.

While it’s important to review compensation benchmarks to remain competitive, it’s difficult to put a price on some factors that many may consider more valuable – group culture, opportunities for professional growth, and schedules that afford better work-life integration. Indirect measures of such benefits include paid time off, paid sick days, CME allowances and time, and retirement benefits programs. In 2020, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $13,955, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $33,771.

It’s encouraging to see that hospitalist compensation continues to rise compared to previous years, despite relatively flat trends in wRVUs and total patient encounters. Another continued trend over the past years is the rising amount of financial support per physician that hospitals or other organizations provide HMGs (see Figure 3).

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

In 2020, the median financial support per FTE (full time equivalent) physician serving adult patients increased by 12% over 2018, to $198,750. Collectively these trends indicate hospitals are willing to compensate hospitalists for more than just their clinical volume.

There’s no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic had some financial impact on hospital medicine groups in 2020. To assess this impact, SHM conducted a follow-up survey and compiled a COVID-19 Addendum to the SoHM Report. While 20.5% of HMG group respondents from the East reported providing hazard pay to clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients, nationally only 9.8% of groups said they offered this benefit. Of the 121 HMGs responding from across the country, 42% reported reductions in compensation, which included measures such as reductions in pay level and elimination or delays to bonus payments. The degree of reductions was not quantified, but fortunately the vast majority of these groups reported that these changes were likely to be temporary. To access all data in the 2020 SoHM Report and COVID-19 Addendum, visit hospitalmedicine.org/sohm to purchase your copy.

It’s certainly unclear what the future holds, but despite any transient changes observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, I believe that historical trends in hospitalist compensation will continue. If 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that hospitalists are essential, not only during an acute care crisis but for daily operations of any hospital.
 

Dr. Kurian is chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

In a time of tremendous uncertainty, there is one trend that seems consistent year over year – the undisputed value of hospitalists. In the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partnered with the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity. The Report provides resounding evidence that hospitalists continue to be compensated at rising rates. This may be driven by both the continued demand-supply mismatch and a recognition of the overall value they generate rather than strictly the volume of their productivity.

In 2020, the median total compensation nationally for adult hospitalists (internal medicine and family medicine) was $307,633, representing an increase of over 6% from the 2018 Survey (see Figure 1).

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

However, the total compensation continues to be lower for academic hospitalists, with a median compensation difference of approximately $70,000 compared to their non-academic colleagues. Some of this sizable variance is offset by the fact that academic HMGs receive more in employee benefits packages than non-academic groups – a difference in median value of $10,500. Ideally, academic hospitalist compensation models should appropriately reflect and value their work efforts toward the tripartite academic mission of clinical care, education, and research. It would be valuable for future surveys to define and measure academic production in order to develop national standards for compensation models that recognize these non-billable forms of productivity.

While it’s important to review compensation benchmarks to remain competitive, it’s difficult to put a price on some factors that many may consider more valuable – group culture, opportunities for professional growth, and schedules that afford better work-life integration. Indirect measures of such benefits include paid time off, paid sick days, CME allowances and time, and retirement benefits programs. In 2020, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $13,955, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $33,771.

It’s encouraging to see that hospitalist compensation continues to rise compared to previous years, despite relatively flat trends in wRVUs and total patient encounters. Another continued trend over the past years is the rising amount of financial support per physician that hospitals or other organizations provide HMGs (see Figure 3).

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

In 2020, the median financial support per FTE (full time equivalent) physician serving adult patients increased by 12% over 2018, to $198,750. Collectively these trends indicate hospitals are willing to compensate hospitalists for more than just their clinical volume.

There’s no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic had some financial impact on hospital medicine groups in 2020. To assess this impact, SHM conducted a follow-up survey and compiled a COVID-19 Addendum to the SoHM Report. While 20.5% of HMG group respondents from the East reported providing hazard pay to clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients, nationally only 9.8% of groups said they offered this benefit. Of the 121 HMGs responding from across the country, 42% reported reductions in compensation, which included measures such as reductions in pay level and elimination or delays to bonus payments. The degree of reductions was not quantified, but fortunately the vast majority of these groups reported that these changes were likely to be temporary. To access all data in the 2020 SoHM Report and COVID-19 Addendum, visit hospitalmedicine.org/sohm to purchase your copy.

It’s certainly unclear what the future holds, but despite any transient changes observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, I believe that historical trends in hospitalist compensation will continue. If 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that hospitalists are essential, not only during an acute care crisis but for daily operations of any hospital.
 

Dr. Kurian is chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

In a time of tremendous uncertainty, there is one trend that seems consistent year over year – the undisputed value of hospitalists. In the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partnered with the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity. The Report provides resounding evidence that hospitalists continue to be compensated at rising rates. This may be driven by both the continued demand-supply mismatch and a recognition of the overall value they generate rather than strictly the volume of their productivity.

In 2020, the median total compensation nationally for adult hospitalists (internal medicine and family medicine) was $307,633, representing an increase of over 6% from the 2018 Survey (see Figure 1).

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

However, the total compensation continues to be lower for academic hospitalists, with a median compensation difference of approximately $70,000 compared to their non-academic colleagues. Some of this sizable variance is offset by the fact that academic HMGs receive more in employee benefits packages than non-academic groups – a difference in median value of $10,500. Ideally, academic hospitalist compensation models should appropriately reflect and value their work efforts toward the tripartite academic mission of clinical care, education, and research. It would be valuable for future surveys to define and measure academic production in order to develop national standards for compensation models that recognize these non-billable forms of productivity.

While it’s important to review compensation benchmarks to remain competitive, it’s difficult to put a price on some factors that many may consider more valuable – group culture, opportunities for professional growth, and schedules that afford better work-life integration. Indirect measures of such benefits include paid time off, paid sick days, CME allowances and time, and retirement benefits programs. In 2020, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $13,955, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $33,771.

It’s encouraging to see that hospitalist compensation continues to rise compared to previous years, despite relatively flat trends in wRVUs and total patient encounters. Another continued trend over the past years is the rising amount of financial support per physician that hospitals or other organizations provide HMGs (see Figure 3).

Source: 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report

In 2020, the median financial support per FTE (full time equivalent) physician serving adult patients increased by 12% over 2018, to $198,750. Collectively these trends indicate hospitals are willing to compensate hospitalists for more than just their clinical volume.

There’s no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic had some financial impact on hospital medicine groups in 2020. To assess this impact, SHM conducted a follow-up survey and compiled a COVID-19 Addendum to the SoHM Report. While 20.5% of HMG group respondents from the East reported providing hazard pay to clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients, nationally only 9.8% of groups said they offered this benefit. Of the 121 HMGs responding from across the country, 42% reported reductions in compensation, which included measures such as reductions in pay level and elimination or delays to bonus payments. The degree of reductions was not quantified, but fortunately the vast majority of these groups reported that these changes were likely to be temporary. To access all data in the 2020 SoHM Report and COVID-19 Addendum, visit hospitalmedicine.org/sohm to purchase your copy.

It’s certainly unclear what the future holds, but despite any transient changes observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, I believe that historical trends in hospitalist compensation will continue. If 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that hospitalists are essential, not only during an acute care crisis but for daily operations of any hospital.
 

Dr. Kurian is chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Critical care staff are less likely to acquire COVID-19 infection from ICU patients than they are from areas away from the bedside, a new study has found.

Courtesy NIAID

“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.

She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.

The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.

“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”

The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.

The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.

“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”

All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.

Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).

Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.

“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”

Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.

The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.

“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”

There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.

These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.

In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.

“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”

Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”

Critical care staff are less likely to acquire COVID-19 infection from ICU patients than they are from areas away from the bedside, a new study has found.

Courtesy NIAID

“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.

She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.

The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.

“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”

The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.

The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.

“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”

All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.

Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).

Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.

“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”

Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.

The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.

“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”

There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.

These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.

In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.

“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”

Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”

Critical care staff are less likely to acquire COVID-19 infection from ICU patients than they are from areas away from the bedside, a new study has found.

Courtesy NIAID

“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.

She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.

The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.

“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”

The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.

The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.

“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”

All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.

Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).

Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.

“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”

Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.

The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.

“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”

There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.

These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.

In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.

“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”

Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”

Health care professionals working in critical care settings have been overburdened because of the plethora of COVID-19 cases, which has led to symptoms of burnout in both physicians and nurses, findings from a new study show.

XiXinXing/ThinkStock

“Overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout,” said lead study author Niek Kok, MSc, of IQ healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. “All ICU professionals are at the risk of this, and in our study, the incidence of physicians experiencing burnout was significantly higher than that of nurses in June 2020.”

This burnout can be explained by conditions caused by the pandemic, he noted, such as the scarcity of staff and resources and having to work with colleagues who were not qualified to work in critical care but who were there out of necessity.

Mr. Kok presented the findings of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
 

Burnout highest among critical care physicians

The ICU can be a stressful environment for both patients and health care personnel, and burnout is not uncommon among ICU clinicians. However, COVID-19 has amplified the degree of burnout being experienced by clinicians working in this setting. Critical care physicians now top the list of physicians experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, according to the Medscape report ‘Death by 1000 Thousand Cuts’: Physician Burnout and Suicide Report 2021.

The Medscape Nurse Career Satisfaction Report 2020, while not restricted to those working in critical care, also reported higher rates of burnout, compared with the prepandemic period. The percentage of nurses reporting being “very burned out” prior to the pandemic was 4%. Six months into the pandemic, that percentage soared to 18%.

In this study, Mr. Kok and colleagues examined the prevalence and incidence of burnout symptoms and moral distress in health care professionals working in the ICU, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“When the COVID-19 pandemic surfaced in the Netherlands, the health care professionals in our hospitals were motivated to do everything they could to provide the best care possible,” said Mr. Kok. “Many of the ICU professionals immediately realized that they would have to work longer hours.”

However, the health care professionals that he spoke with did have mixed feelings. Some were afraid of being infected with the virus, while others said that “it was very interesting times for them and that gave them extra motivation to do the work.

“Some physicians [and] the WHO warned that COVID-19 is not going to weathered by a heroic sprint – it is an arduous marathon that is going to go hand in hand with burnout symptoms,” Mr. Kok added. “It will eat away at our qualified ICU staff.”
 

Before and after data on burnout

It was widely believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would increase burnout symptoms, as had been demonstrated in studies of previous pandemics. However, Mr. Kok emphasized that there are no before and after measurements that transcend cross-sectional designs.

“The claim [has been] that it increases burnout – but there are no assessments of how it progresses in ICU professionals through time,” he said. “So what we really need is a comparison [of] before and after the pandemic.”

It is quite difficult to obtain this type of information because disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be predicted, he said. Thus, it is challenging to get a baseline measurement. But Mr. Kok pointed out that the study has both “before and after” measurements.

“By coincidence really, we had baseline data to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and had information that was collected before the pandemic,” he said.

In January 2020, a study began looking at the effects of ethics meetings on moral distress in ICU professionals. Data had been collected on moral distress and burnout on ICU professionals in December 2019. The first COVID-19 cases appeared in the Netherlands in February 2020.

A follow-up study was then conducted in May and June 2020, several months into the pandemic.

The longitudinal open cohort study included all ICU personnel who were working in five units within a single university medical center, plus another adult ICU that was based in a separate teaching hospital.

A total of 352 health care professionals responded to a baseline survey in October through December 2019, and then 233 responded to a follow-up survey sent in May and June 2020. The authors measured burnout symptoms and moral distress with the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Moral Distress Scale, respectively.
 

Findings

The overall prevalence of burnout symptoms was 23.0% prior to the pandemic, and that jumped to 36.1% at post-peak time. Higher rates of burnout were reported by nurses (38.0%) than physicians (28.6%).

However, the incidence rate of new burnout cases was higher among physicians, compared with nurses (26.7% vs 21.9%). Not surprisingly, a higher prevalence of burnout symptoms was observed in the post-peak period for all clinicians (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.53), and was higher for nurses (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.04), for those working overtime (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.48-3.02), and for personnel who directly engaged in patient care (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.35-2.60).

Physicians in general were much more likely to develop burnout symptoms related to the pandemic, compared with nurses (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.06-12.21).

When looking at findings on moral distress, Kok pointed out that it often arises in situations when the health care professional knows the right thing to do but is prevented from doing so. “Morally distressful situations all rose from December to June,” said Mr. Kok. “Scarcity was the most distressing. The other was where colleagues were perceived to be less skilled, and this had to do with the recruitment of people from outside of the ICU to provide care.”

Moral distress from scarcity and unskilled colleagues were both significantly related to burnout, he noted.

In the final model, working in a COVID-19 unit, stress from scarcity of resources and people, stress from unskilled colleagues, and stress from unsafe conditions were all related to burnout. “The stress of physicians was significantly higher,” said Kok. “Even though nurses had higher baseline burnout, it became less pronounced in June 2020. This indicates that burnout was significantly higher in physicians.”

Thus, Mr. Kok and colleagues concluded that overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout, and all ICU workers are at risk.
 

Burnout rates higher in physicians

Weighing in on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that the differences observed between physicians and nurses may have to do with the fact that “nurses have been smoldering all along and experiencing higher rates of burnout.

“They may have adapted better to the pandemic conditions, since they are more used to working overtime and short staffed, and spending far more time at the bedside,” he said. “Because of the volume of patients, physicians may be spending more hours doing patient care and are experiencing more burnout.”

Health care professionals working in critical care settings have been overburdened because of the plethora of COVID-19 cases, which has led to symptoms of burnout in both physicians and nurses, findings from a new study show.

XiXinXing/ThinkStock

“Overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout,” said lead study author Niek Kok, MSc, of IQ healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. “All ICU professionals are at the risk of this, and in our study, the incidence of physicians experiencing burnout was significantly higher than that of nurses in June 2020.”

This burnout can be explained by conditions caused by the pandemic, he noted, such as the scarcity of staff and resources and having to work with colleagues who were not qualified to work in critical care but who were there out of necessity.

Mr. Kok presented the findings of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
 

Burnout highest among critical care physicians

The ICU can be a stressful environment for both patients and health care personnel, and burnout is not uncommon among ICU clinicians. However, COVID-19 has amplified the degree of burnout being experienced by clinicians working in this setting. Critical care physicians now top the list of physicians experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, according to the Medscape report ‘Death by 1000 Thousand Cuts’: Physician Burnout and Suicide Report 2021.

The Medscape Nurse Career Satisfaction Report 2020, while not restricted to those working in critical care, also reported higher rates of burnout, compared with the prepandemic period. The percentage of nurses reporting being “very burned out” prior to the pandemic was 4%. Six months into the pandemic, that percentage soared to 18%.

In this study, Mr. Kok and colleagues examined the prevalence and incidence of burnout symptoms and moral distress in health care professionals working in the ICU, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“When the COVID-19 pandemic surfaced in the Netherlands, the health care professionals in our hospitals were motivated to do everything they could to provide the best care possible,” said Mr. Kok. “Many of the ICU professionals immediately realized that they would have to work longer hours.”

However, the health care professionals that he spoke with did have mixed feelings. Some were afraid of being infected with the virus, while others said that “it was very interesting times for them and that gave them extra motivation to do the work.

“Some physicians [and] the WHO warned that COVID-19 is not going to weathered by a heroic sprint – it is an arduous marathon that is going to go hand in hand with burnout symptoms,” Mr. Kok added. “It will eat away at our qualified ICU staff.”
 

Before and after data on burnout

It was widely believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would increase burnout symptoms, as had been demonstrated in studies of previous pandemics. However, Mr. Kok emphasized that there are no before and after measurements that transcend cross-sectional designs.

“The claim [has been] that it increases burnout – but there are no assessments of how it progresses in ICU professionals through time,” he said. “So what we really need is a comparison [of] before and after the pandemic.”

It is quite difficult to obtain this type of information because disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be predicted, he said. Thus, it is challenging to get a baseline measurement. But Mr. Kok pointed out that the study has both “before and after” measurements.

“By coincidence really, we had baseline data to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and had information that was collected before the pandemic,” he said.

In January 2020, a study began looking at the effects of ethics meetings on moral distress in ICU professionals. Data had been collected on moral distress and burnout on ICU professionals in December 2019. The first COVID-19 cases appeared in the Netherlands in February 2020.

A follow-up study was then conducted in May and June 2020, several months into the pandemic.

The longitudinal open cohort study included all ICU personnel who were working in five units within a single university medical center, plus another adult ICU that was based in a separate teaching hospital.

A total of 352 health care professionals responded to a baseline survey in October through December 2019, and then 233 responded to a follow-up survey sent in May and June 2020. The authors measured burnout symptoms and moral distress with the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Moral Distress Scale, respectively.
 

Findings

The overall prevalence of burnout symptoms was 23.0% prior to the pandemic, and that jumped to 36.1% at post-peak time. Higher rates of burnout were reported by nurses (38.0%) than physicians (28.6%).

However, the incidence rate of new burnout cases was higher among physicians, compared with nurses (26.7% vs 21.9%). Not surprisingly, a higher prevalence of burnout symptoms was observed in the post-peak period for all clinicians (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.53), and was higher for nurses (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.04), for those working overtime (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.48-3.02), and for personnel who directly engaged in patient care (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.35-2.60).

Physicians in general were much more likely to develop burnout symptoms related to the pandemic, compared with nurses (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.06-12.21).

When looking at findings on moral distress, Kok pointed out that it often arises in situations when the health care professional knows the right thing to do but is prevented from doing so. “Morally distressful situations all rose from December to June,” said Mr. Kok. “Scarcity was the most distressing. The other was where colleagues were perceived to be less skilled, and this had to do with the recruitment of people from outside of the ICU to provide care.”

Moral distress from scarcity and unskilled colleagues were both significantly related to burnout, he noted.

In the final model, working in a COVID-19 unit, stress from scarcity of resources and people, stress from unskilled colleagues, and stress from unsafe conditions were all related to burnout. “The stress of physicians was significantly higher,” said Kok. “Even though nurses had higher baseline burnout, it became less pronounced in June 2020. This indicates that burnout was significantly higher in physicians.”

Thus, Mr. Kok and colleagues concluded that overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout, and all ICU workers are at risk.
 

Burnout rates higher in physicians

Weighing in on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that the differences observed between physicians and nurses may have to do with the fact that “nurses have been smoldering all along and experiencing higher rates of burnout.

“They may have adapted better to the pandemic conditions, since they are more used to working overtime and short staffed, and spending far more time at the bedside,” he said. “Because of the volume of patients, physicians may be spending more hours doing patient care and are experiencing more burnout.”

Health care professionals working in critical care settings have been overburdened because of the plethora of COVID-19 cases, which has led to symptoms of burnout in both physicians and nurses, findings from a new study show.

XiXinXing/ThinkStock

“Overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout,” said lead study author Niek Kok, MSc, of IQ healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. “All ICU professionals are at the risk of this, and in our study, the incidence of physicians experiencing burnout was significantly higher than that of nurses in June 2020.”

This burnout can be explained by conditions caused by the pandemic, he noted, such as the scarcity of staff and resources and having to work with colleagues who were not qualified to work in critical care but who were there out of necessity.

Mr. Kok presented the findings of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
 

Burnout highest among critical care physicians

The ICU can be a stressful environment for both patients and health care personnel, and burnout is not uncommon among ICU clinicians. However, COVID-19 has amplified the degree of burnout being experienced by clinicians working in this setting. Critical care physicians now top the list of physicians experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, according to the Medscape report ‘Death by 1000 Thousand Cuts’: Physician Burnout and Suicide Report 2021.

The Medscape Nurse Career Satisfaction Report 2020, while not restricted to those working in critical care, also reported higher rates of burnout, compared with the prepandemic period. The percentage of nurses reporting being “very burned out” prior to the pandemic was 4%. Six months into the pandemic, that percentage soared to 18%.

In this study, Mr. Kok and colleagues examined the prevalence and incidence of burnout symptoms and moral distress in health care professionals working in the ICU, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“When the COVID-19 pandemic surfaced in the Netherlands, the health care professionals in our hospitals were motivated to do everything they could to provide the best care possible,” said Mr. Kok. “Many of the ICU professionals immediately realized that they would have to work longer hours.”

However, the health care professionals that he spoke with did have mixed feelings. Some were afraid of being infected with the virus, while others said that “it was very interesting times for them and that gave them extra motivation to do the work.

“Some physicians [and] the WHO warned that COVID-19 is not going to weathered by a heroic sprint – it is an arduous marathon that is going to go hand in hand with burnout symptoms,” Mr. Kok added. “It will eat away at our qualified ICU staff.”
 

Before and after data on burnout

It was widely believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would increase burnout symptoms, as had been demonstrated in studies of previous pandemics. However, Mr. Kok emphasized that there are no before and after measurements that transcend cross-sectional designs.

“The claim [has been] that it increases burnout – but there are no assessments of how it progresses in ICU professionals through time,” he said. “So what we really need is a comparison [of] before and after the pandemic.”

It is quite difficult to obtain this type of information because disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be predicted, he said. Thus, it is challenging to get a baseline measurement. But Mr. Kok pointed out that the study has both “before and after” measurements.

“By coincidence really, we had baseline data to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and had information that was collected before the pandemic,” he said.

In January 2020, a study began looking at the effects of ethics meetings on moral distress in ICU professionals. Data had been collected on moral distress and burnout on ICU professionals in December 2019. The first COVID-19 cases appeared in the Netherlands in February 2020.

A follow-up study was then conducted in May and June 2020, several months into the pandemic.

The longitudinal open cohort study included all ICU personnel who were working in five units within a single university medical center, plus another adult ICU that was based in a separate teaching hospital.

A total of 352 health care professionals responded to a baseline survey in October through December 2019, and then 233 responded to a follow-up survey sent in May and June 2020. The authors measured burnout symptoms and moral distress with the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Moral Distress Scale, respectively.
 

Findings

The overall prevalence of burnout symptoms was 23.0% prior to the pandemic, and that jumped to 36.1% at post-peak time. Higher rates of burnout were reported by nurses (38.0%) than physicians (28.6%).

However, the incidence rate of new burnout cases was higher among physicians, compared with nurses (26.7% vs 21.9%). Not surprisingly, a higher prevalence of burnout symptoms was observed in the post-peak period for all clinicians (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.53), and was higher for nurses (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.04), for those working overtime (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.48-3.02), and for personnel who directly engaged in patient care (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.35-2.60).

Physicians in general were much more likely to develop burnout symptoms related to the pandemic, compared with nurses (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.06-12.21).

When looking at findings on moral distress, Kok pointed out that it often arises in situations when the health care professional knows the right thing to do but is prevented from doing so. “Morally distressful situations all rose from December to June,” said Mr. Kok. “Scarcity was the most distressing. The other was where colleagues were perceived to be less skilled, and this had to do with the recruitment of people from outside of the ICU to provide care.”

Moral distress from scarcity and unskilled colleagues were both significantly related to burnout, he noted.

In the final model, working in a COVID-19 unit, stress from scarcity of resources and people, stress from unskilled colleagues, and stress from unsafe conditions were all related to burnout. “The stress of physicians was significantly higher,” said Kok. “Even though nurses had higher baseline burnout, it became less pronounced in June 2020. This indicates that burnout was significantly higher in physicians.”

Thus, Mr. Kok and colleagues concluded that overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout, and all ICU workers are at risk.
 

Burnout rates higher in physicians

Weighing in on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that the differences observed between physicians and nurses may have to do with the fact that “nurses have been smoldering all along and experiencing higher rates of burnout.

“They may have adapted better to the pandemic conditions, since they are more used to working overtime and short staffed, and spending far more time at the bedside,” he said. “Because of the volume of patients, physicians may be spending more hours doing patient care and are experiencing more burnout.”

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Beyond its clinical objective, the Socrates Project also seeks to further the discovery of previously unrecognized disease processes.

Many patients do not have a diagnosis that explains their signs and symptoms, despite a thorough evaluation, said Benjamin Singer, MD, assistant professor of pulmonology and critical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. To address that problem, he and his colleagues launched the Socrates Project. The service is intended for difficult diagnoses and is based on Socratic principles, particularly the role of iterative hypothesis testing in the process of diagnosis.

“We began the Socrates Project to assist physicians caring for patients who lack a specific diagnosis. In creating this service, we have found ourselves to be doctors for doctors – formalizing the curbside consultation,” Dr. Singer said.

Northwestern Medicine launched the Socrates Project in 2015. It’s a physician-to-physician consultation service that assists doctors working to diagnose conditions that have so far eluded detection. “Our service’s goal is to improve patient care by providing an opinion to the referring physician on diagnostic possibilities for a particular case and ideas to reduce – or at least manage – diagnostic uncertainty,” they write. “Our service model is similar to a tumor board, which exists as an interdisciplinary group operating in parallel to the clinical services, to provide consensus-based recommendations.”

Hospitalists at other institutions may be interested in starting a similar type of service at their own institution or collaborating with institutions who offer this type of service, Dr. Singer said.

At Northwestern Medicine, they are at work on the project’s next steps. “We are working to generate systematic data about our practice, particularly the types of referrals and outcomes,” he said.
 

Reference

1. Singer BD, et al. The Socrates Project for Difficult Diagnosis at Northwestern Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2020 February;15(2):116-125. doi:10.12788/jhm.3335.

Beyond its clinical objective, the Socrates Project also seeks to further the discovery of previously unrecognized disease processes.

Many patients do not have a diagnosis that explains their signs and symptoms, despite a thorough evaluation, said Benjamin Singer, MD, assistant professor of pulmonology and critical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. To address that problem, he and his colleagues launched the Socrates Project. The service is intended for difficult diagnoses and is based on Socratic principles, particularly the role of iterative hypothesis testing in the process of diagnosis.

“We began the Socrates Project to assist physicians caring for patients who lack a specific diagnosis. In creating this service, we have found ourselves to be doctors for doctors – formalizing the curbside consultation,” Dr. Singer said.

Northwestern Medicine launched the Socrates Project in 2015. It’s a physician-to-physician consultation service that assists doctors working to diagnose conditions that have so far eluded detection. “Our service’s goal is to improve patient care by providing an opinion to the referring physician on diagnostic possibilities for a particular case and ideas to reduce – or at least manage – diagnostic uncertainty,” they write. “Our service model is similar to a tumor board, which exists as an interdisciplinary group operating in parallel to the clinical services, to provide consensus-based recommendations.”

Hospitalists at other institutions may be interested in starting a similar type of service at their own institution or collaborating with institutions who offer this type of service, Dr. Singer said.

At Northwestern Medicine, they are at work on the project’s next steps. “We are working to generate systematic data about our practice, particularly the types of referrals and outcomes,” he said.
 

Reference

1. Singer BD, et al. The Socrates Project for Difficult Diagnosis at Northwestern Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2020 February;15(2):116-125. doi:10.12788/jhm.3335.

Beyond its clinical objective, the Socrates Project also seeks to further the discovery of previously unrecognized disease processes.

Many patients do not have a diagnosis that explains their signs and symptoms, despite a thorough evaluation, said Benjamin Singer, MD, assistant professor of pulmonology and critical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. To address that problem, he and his colleagues launched the Socrates Project. The service is intended for difficult diagnoses and is based on Socratic principles, particularly the role of iterative hypothesis testing in the process of diagnosis.

“We began the Socrates Project to assist physicians caring for patients who lack a specific diagnosis. In creating this service, we have found ourselves to be doctors for doctors – formalizing the curbside consultation,” Dr. Singer said.

Northwestern Medicine launched the Socrates Project in 2015. It’s a physician-to-physician consultation service that assists doctors working to diagnose conditions that have so far eluded detection. “Our service’s goal is to improve patient care by providing an opinion to the referring physician on diagnostic possibilities for a particular case and ideas to reduce – or at least manage – diagnostic uncertainty,” they write. “Our service model is similar to a tumor board, which exists as an interdisciplinary group operating in parallel to the clinical services, to provide consensus-based recommendations.”

Hospitalists at other institutions may be interested in starting a similar type of service at their own institution or collaborating with institutions who offer this type of service, Dr. Singer said.

At Northwestern Medicine, they are at work on the project’s next steps. “We are working to generate systematic data about our practice, particularly the types of referrals and outcomes,” he said.
 

Reference

1. Singer BD, et al. The Socrates Project for Difficult Diagnosis at Northwestern Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2020 February;15(2):116-125. doi:10.12788/jhm.3335.

Large numbers of COVID-19 cases have been undetected and unreported, which has resulted in severe undercounting of the total number of people who have been infected during the pandemic, according to a new study published Monday in the journal PLOS ONE.

In the United States, the number of COVID-19 cases is likely three times that of reported cases. According to the study, more than 71 million Americans have contracted the virus during the pandemic, and 7 million were infected or potentially contagious last week.

Public health officials rely on case counts to guide decisions, so the undercounting should be considered while trying to end the pandemic.

“The estimates of actual infections reveal for the first time the true severity of COVID-19 across the U.S. and in countries worldwide,” Jungsik Noh, PhD, a bioinformatics professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, said in a statement.

Dr. Noh and colleague Gaudenz Danuser created a computational model that uses machine-learning strategies to estimate the actual number of daily cases in the United States and the 50 most-infected countries.

The model pulls data from the Johns Hopkins University database and the COVID Tracking Project, as well as large-scale surveys conducted by the CDC and several states. The algorithm uses the number of reported deaths, which is thought to be more accurate than the number of lab-confirmed cases, as the basis for calculations.

In 25 of the 50 countries, the “actual” cumulative cases were estimated to be 5-20 times greater than the confirmed cases. In the United States, Belgium, and Brazil, about 10% of the population has contracted the coronavirus, according to the model. At the beginning of February, about 11% of the population in Pennsylvania had current infections, which was the highest rate of any state. About 0.15% of residents in Minnesota had infections, and about 2.5% of residents in New York and Texas had infections.

“Knowing the true severity in different regions will help us effectively fight against the virus spreading,” Dr. Noh said. “The currently infected population is the cause of future infections and deaths. Its actual size in a region is a crucial variable required when determining the severity of COVID-19 and building strategies against regional outbreaks.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Large numbers of COVID-19 cases have been undetected and unreported, which has resulted in severe undercounting of the total number of people who have been infected during the pandemic, according to a new study published Monday in the journal PLOS ONE.

In the United States, the number of COVID-19 cases is likely three times that of reported cases. According to the study, more than 71 million Americans have contracted the virus during the pandemic, and 7 million were infected or potentially contagious last week.

Public health officials rely on case counts to guide decisions, so the undercounting should be considered while trying to end the pandemic.

“The estimates of actual infections reveal for the first time the true severity of COVID-19 across the U.S. and in countries worldwide,” Jungsik Noh, PhD, a bioinformatics professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, said in a statement.

Dr. Noh and colleague Gaudenz Danuser created a computational model that uses machine-learning strategies to estimate the actual number of daily cases in the United States and the 50 most-infected countries.

The model pulls data from the Johns Hopkins University database and the COVID Tracking Project, as well as large-scale surveys conducted by the CDC and several states. The algorithm uses the number of reported deaths, which is thought to be more accurate than the number of lab-confirmed cases, as the basis for calculations.

In 25 of the 50 countries, the “actual” cumulative cases were estimated to be 5-20 times greater than the confirmed cases. In the United States, Belgium, and Brazil, about 10% of the population has contracted the coronavirus, according to the model. At the beginning of February, about 11% of the population in Pennsylvania had current infections, which was the highest rate of any state. About 0.15% of residents in Minnesota had infections, and about 2.5% of residents in New York and Texas had infections.

“Knowing the true severity in different regions will help us effectively fight against the virus spreading,” Dr. Noh said. “The currently infected population is the cause of future infections and deaths. Its actual size in a region is a crucial variable required when determining the severity of COVID-19 and building strategies against regional outbreaks.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Large numbers of COVID-19 cases have been undetected and unreported, which has resulted in severe undercounting of the total number of people who have been infected during the pandemic, according to a new study published Monday in the journal PLOS ONE.

In the United States, the number of COVID-19 cases is likely three times that of reported cases. According to the study, more than 71 million Americans have contracted the virus during the pandemic, and 7 million were infected or potentially contagious last week.

Public health officials rely on case counts to guide decisions, so the undercounting should be considered while trying to end the pandemic.

“The estimates of actual infections reveal for the first time the true severity of COVID-19 across the U.S. and in countries worldwide,” Jungsik Noh, PhD, a bioinformatics professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, said in a statement.

Dr. Noh and colleague Gaudenz Danuser created a computational model that uses machine-learning strategies to estimate the actual number of daily cases in the United States and the 50 most-infected countries.

The model pulls data from the Johns Hopkins University database and the COVID Tracking Project, as well as large-scale surveys conducted by the CDC and several states. The algorithm uses the number of reported deaths, which is thought to be more accurate than the number of lab-confirmed cases, as the basis for calculations.

In 25 of the 50 countries, the “actual” cumulative cases were estimated to be 5-20 times greater than the confirmed cases. In the United States, Belgium, and Brazil, about 10% of the population has contracted the coronavirus, according to the model. At the beginning of February, about 11% of the population in Pennsylvania had current infections, which was the highest rate of any state. About 0.15% of residents in Minnesota had infections, and about 2.5% of residents in New York and Texas had infections.

“Knowing the true severity in different regions will help us effectively fight against the virus spreading,” Dr. Noh said. “The currently infected population is the cause of future infections and deaths. Its actual size in a region is a crucial variable required when determining the severity of COVID-19 and building strategies against regional outbreaks.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As Rachna Rawal, MD, was donning her personal protective equipment (PPE), a process that has become deeply ingrained into her muscle memory, a nurse approached her to ask, “Hey, for Mr. Smith, any chance we can time these labs to be done together with his medication administration? We’ve been in and out of that room a few times already.”

As someone who embraces high-value care, this simple suggestion surprised her. What an easy strategy to minimize room entry with full PPE, lab testing, and patient interruptions. That same day, someone else asked, “Do we need overnight vitals?”

COVID-19 has forced hospitalists to reconsider almost every aspect of care. It feels like every decision we make including things we do routinely – labs, vital signs, imaging – needs to be reassessed to determine the actual benefit to the patient balanced against concerns about staff safety, dwindling PPE supplies, and medication reserves. We are all faced with frequently answering the question, “How will this intervention help the patient?” This question lies at the heart of delivering high-value care.

High-value care is providing the best care possible through efficient use of resources, achieving optimal results for each patient. While high-value care has become a prominent focus over the past decade, COVID-19’s high transmissibility without a cure – and associated scarcity of health care resources – have sparked additional discussions on the front lines about promoting patient outcomes while avoiding waste. Clinicians may not have realized that these were high-value care conversations.

The United States’ health care quality and cost crises, worsened in the face of the current pandemic, have been glaringly apparent for years. Our country is spending more money on health care than anywhere else in the world without desired improvements in patient outcomes. A 2019 JAMA study found that 25% of all health care spending, an estimated $760 to $935 billion, is considered waste, and a significant proportion of this waste is due to repetitive care, overuse and unnecessary care in the U.S.¹

Examples of low-value care tests include ordering daily labs in stable medicine inpatients, routine urine electrolytes in acute kidney injury, and folate testing in anemia. The Choosing Wisely^® national campaign, Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason,” and JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Teachable Moment” series have provided guidance on areas where common testing or interventions may not benefit patient outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions related to other widely-utilized practices: Can medication times be readjusted to allow only one entry into the room? Will these labs or imaging studies actually change management? Are vital checks every 4 hours needed?

Why did it take the COVID-19 threat to our medical system to force many of us to have these discussions? Despite prior efforts to integrate high-value care into hospital practices, long-standing habits and deep-seeded culture are challenging to overcome. Once clinicians develop practice habits, these behaviors tend to persist throughout their careers.² In many ways, COVID-19 was like hitting a “reset button” as health care professionals were forced to rapidly confront their deeply-ingrained hospital practices and habits. From new protocols for patient rounding to universal masking and social distancing to ground-breaking strategies like awake proning, the response to COVID-19 has represented an unprecedented rapid shift in practice. Previously, consequences of overuse were too downstream or too abstract for clinicians to see in real-time. However, now the ramifications of these choices hit closer to home with obvious potential consequences – like spreading a terrifying virus.

There are three interventions that hospitalists should consider implementing immediately in the COVID-19 era that accelerate us toward high-value care. Routine lab tests, imaging, and overnight vitals represent opportunities to provide patient-centered care while also remaining cognizant of resource utilization.

One area in hospital medicine that has proven challenging to significantly change practice has been routine daily labs. Patients on a general medical inpatient service who are clinically stable generally do not benefit from routine lab work.³ Avoiding these tests does not increase mortality or length of stay in clinically stable patients.³ However, despite this evidence, many patients with COVID-19 and other conditions experience lab draws that are not timed together and are done each morning out of “routine.” Choosing Wisely^® recommendations from the Society of Hospital Medicine encourage clinicians to question routine lab work for COVID-19 patients and to consider batching them, if possible.^3,4 In COVID-19 patients, the risks of not batching tests are magnified, both in terms of the patient-centered experience and for clinician safety. In essence, COVID-19 has pushed us to consider the elements of safety, PPE conservation and other factors, rather than making decisions based solely on their own comfort, convenience, or historical practice.

Clinicians are also reconsidering the necessity of imaging during the pandemic. The “Things We Do For No Reason” article on “Choosing Wisely^® in the COVID-19 era” highlights this well.⁴ It is more important now than ever to decide whether the timing and type of imaging will change management for your patient. Questions to ask include: Can a portable x-ray be used to avoid patient travel and will that CT scan help your patient? A posterior-anterior/lateral x-ray can potentially provide more information depending on the clinical scenario. However, we now need to assess if that extra information is going to impact patient management. Downstream consequences of these decisions include not only risks to the patient but also infectious exposures for staff and others during patient travel.

Lastly, overnight vital sign checks are another intervention we should analyze through this high-value care lens. The Journal of Hospital Medicine released a “Things We Do For No Reason” article about minimizing overnight vitals to promote uninterrupted sleep at night.⁵ Deleterious effects of interrupting the sleep of our patients include delirium and patient dissatisfaction.⁵ Studies have shown the benefits of this approach, yet the shift away from routine overnight vitals has not yet widely occurred.

COVID-19 has pressed us to save PPE and minimize exposure risk; hence, some centers are coordinating the timing of vitals with medication administration times, when feasible. In the stable patient recovering from COVID-19, overnight vitals may not be necessary, particularly if remote monitoring is available. This accomplishes multiple goals: Providing high quality patient care, reducing resource utilization, and minimizing patient nighttime interruptions – all culminating in high-value care.

Even though the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unforeseen emotional, physical, and financial challenges for the health care system and its workers, there may be a silver lining. The pandemic has sparked high-value care discussions, and the urgency of the crisis may be instilling new practices in our daily work. This virus has indeed left a terrible wake of destruction, but may also be a nudge to permanently change our culture of overuse to help us shape the habits of all trainees during this tumultuous time. This experience will hopefully culminate in a culture in which clinicians routinely ask, “How will this intervention help the patient?”
 

Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine, University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Linker is assistant professor of medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Moriates is associate professor of internal medicine, Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin.

References

1. Shrank W et al. Waste in The US healthcare system. JAMA. 2019;322(15):1501-9.

2. Chen C et al. Spending patterns in region of residency training and subsequent expenditures for care provided by practicing physicians for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2014;312(22):2385-93.

3. Eaton KP et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1833-9.

4. Cho H et al. Choosing Wisely in the COVID-19 Era: Preventing harm to healthcare workers. J Hosp Med. 2020;15(6):360-2.

5. Orlov N and Arora V. Things we do for no reason: Routine overnight vital sign checks. J Hosp Med. 2020;15(5):272-27.

As Rachna Rawal, MD, was donning her personal protective equipment (PPE), a process that has become deeply ingrained into her muscle memory, a nurse approached her to ask, “Hey, for Mr. Smith, any chance we can time these labs to be done together with his medication administration? We’ve been in and out of that room a few times already.”

As someone who embraces high-value care, this simple suggestion surprised her. What an easy strategy to minimize room entry with full PPE, lab testing, and patient interruptions. That same day, someone else asked, “Do we need overnight vitals?”

COVID-19 has forced hospitalists to reconsider almost every aspect of care. It feels like every decision we make including things we do routinely – labs, vital signs, imaging – needs to be reassessed to determine the actual benefit to the patient balanced against concerns about staff safety, dwindling PPE supplies, and medication reserves. We are all faced with frequently answering the question, “How will this intervention help the patient?” This question lies at the heart of delivering high-value care.

High-value care is providing the best care possible through efficient use of resources, achieving optimal results for each patient. While high-value care has become a prominent focus over the past decade, COVID-19’s high transmissibility without a cure – and associated scarcity of health care resources – have sparked additional discussions on the front lines about promoting patient outcomes while avoiding waste. Clinicians may not have realized that these were high-value care conversations.

The United States’ health care quality and cost crises, worsened in the face of the current pandemic, have been glaringly apparent for years. Our country is spending more money on health care than anywhere else in the world without desired improvements in patient outcomes. A 2019 JAMA study found that 25% of all health care spending, an estimated $760 to $935 billion, is considered waste, and a significant proportion of this waste is due to repetitive care, overuse and unnecessary care in the U.S.¹

Examples of low-value care tests include ordering daily labs in stable medicine inpatients, routine urine electrolytes in acute kidney injury, and folate testing in anemia. The Choosing Wisely^® national campaign, Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason,” and JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Teachable Moment” series have provided guidance on areas where common testing or interventions may not benefit patient outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions related to other widely-utilized practices: Can medication times be readjusted to allow only one entry into the room? Will these labs or imaging studies actually change management? Are vital checks every 4 hours needed?

Why did it take the COVID-19 threat to our medical system to force many of us to have these discussions? Despite prior efforts to integrate high-value care into hospital practices, long-standing habits and deep-seeded culture are challenging to overcome. Once clinicians develop practice habits, these behaviors tend to persist throughout their careers.² In many ways, COVID-19 was like hitting a “reset button” as health care professionals were forced to rapidly confront their deeply-ingrained hospital practices and habits. From new protocols for patient rounding to universal masking and social distancing to ground-breaking strategies like awake proning, the response to COVID-19 has represented an unprecedented rapid shift in practice. Previously, consequences of overuse were too downstream or too abstract for clinicians to see in real-time. However, now the ramifications of these choices hit closer to home with obvious potential consequences – like spreading a terrifying virus.

There are three interventions that hospitalists should consider implementing immediately in the COVID-19 era that accelerate us toward high-value care. Routine lab tests, imaging, and overnight vitals represent opportunities to provide patient-centered care while also remaining cognizant of resource utilization.

One area in hospital medicine that has proven challenging to significantly change practice has been routine daily labs. Patients on a general medical inpatient service who are clinically stable generally do not benefit from routine lab work.³ Avoiding these tests does not increase mortality or length of stay in clinically stable patients.³ However, despite this evidence, many patients with COVID-19 and other conditions experience lab draws that are not timed together and are done each morning out of “routine.” Choosing Wisely^® recommendations from the Society of Hospital Medicine encourage clinicians to question routine lab work for COVID-19 patients and to consider batching them, if possible.^3,4 In COVID-19 patients, the risks of not batching tests are magnified, both in terms of the patient-centered experience and for clinician safety. In essence, COVID-19 has pushed us to consider the elements of safety, PPE conservation and other factors, rather than making decisions based solely on their own comfort, convenience, or historical practice.

Clinicians are also reconsidering the necessity of imaging during the pandemic. The “Things We Do For No Reason” article on “Choosing Wisely^® in the COVID-19 era” highlights this well.⁴ It is more important now than ever to decide whether the timing and type of imaging will change management for your patient. Questions to ask include: Can a portable x-ray be used to avoid patient travel and will that CT scan help your patient? A posterior-anterior/lateral x-ray can potentially provide more information depending on the clinical scenario. However, we now need to assess if that extra information is going to impact patient management. Downstream consequences of these decisions include not only risks to the patient but also infectious exposures for staff and others during patient travel.

Lastly, overnight vital sign checks are another intervention we should analyze through this high-value care lens. The Journal of Hospital Medicine released a “Things We Do For No Reason” article about minimizing overnight vitals to promote uninterrupted sleep at night.⁵ Deleterious effects of interrupting the sleep of our patients include delirium and patient dissatisfaction.⁵ Studies have shown the benefits of this approach, yet the shift away from routine overnight vitals has not yet widely occurred.

COVID-19 has pressed us to save PPE and minimize exposure risk; hence, some centers are coordinating the timing of vitals with medication administration times, when feasible. In the stable patient recovering from COVID-19, overnight vitals may not be necessary, particularly if remote monitoring is available. This accomplishes multiple goals: Providing high quality patient care, reducing resource utilization, and minimizing patient nighttime interruptions – all culminating in high-value care.

Even though the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unforeseen emotional, physical, and financial challenges for the health care system and its workers, there may be a silver lining. The pandemic has sparked high-value care discussions, and the urgency of the crisis may be instilling new practices in our daily work. This virus has indeed left a terrible wake of destruction, but may also be a nudge to permanently change our culture of overuse to help us shape the habits of all trainees during this tumultuous time. This experience will hopefully culminate in a culture in which clinicians routinely ask, “How will this intervention help the patient?”
 

Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine, University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Linker is assistant professor of medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Moriates is associate professor of internal medicine, Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin.

References

1. Shrank W et al. Waste in The US healthcare system. JAMA. 2019;322(15):1501-9.

2. Chen C et al. Spending patterns in region of residency training and subsequent expenditures for care provided by practicing physicians for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2014;312(22):2385-93.

3. Eaton KP et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1833-9.

4. Cho H et al. Choosing Wisely in the COVID-19 Era: Preventing harm to healthcare workers. J Hosp Med. 2020;15(6):360-2.

5. Orlov N and Arora V. Things we do for no reason: Routine overnight vital sign checks. J Hosp Med. 2020;15(5):272-27.

As Rachna Rawal, MD, was donning her personal protective equipment (PPE), a process that has become deeply ingrained into her muscle memory, a nurse approached her to ask, “Hey, for Mr. Smith, any chance we can time these labs to be done together with his medication administration? We’ve been in and out of that room a few times already.”

As someone who embraces high-value care, this simple suggestion surprised her. What an easy strategy to minimize room entry with full PPE, lab testing, and patient interruptions. That same day, someone else asked, “Do we need overnight vitals?”

COVID-19 has forced hospitalists to reconsider almost every aspect of care. It feels like every decision we make including things we do routinely – labs, vital signs, imaging – needs to be reassessed to determine the actual benefit to the patient balanced against concerns about staff safety, dwindling PPE supplies, and medication reserves. We are all faced with frequently answering the question, “How will this intervention help the patient?” This question lies at the heart of delivering high-value care.

High-value care is providing the best care possible through efficient use of resources, achieving optimal results for each patient. While high-value care has become a prominent focus over the past decade, COVID-19’s high transmissibility without a cure – and associated scarcity of health care resources – have sparked additional discussions on the front lines about promoting patient outcomes while avoiding waste. Clinicians may not have realized that these were high-value care conversations.

The United States’ health care quality and cost crises, worsened in the face of the current pandemic, have been glaringly apparent for years. Our country is spending more money on health care than anywhere else in the world without desired improvements in patient outcomes. A 2019 JAMA study found that 25% of all health care spending, an estimated $760 to $935 billion, is considered waste, and a significant proportion of this waste is due to repetitive care, overuse and unnecessary care in the U.S.¹

Examples of low-value care tests include ordering daily labs in stable medicine inpatients, routine urine electrolytes in acute kidney injury, and folate testing in anemia. The Choosing Wisely^® national campaign, Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason,” and JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Teachable Moment” series have provided guidance on areas where common testing or interventions may not benefit patient outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions related to other widely-utilized practices: Can medication times be readjusted to allow only one entry into the room? Will these labs or imaging studies actually change management? Are vital checks every 4 hours needed?

Why did it take the COVID-19 threat to our medical system to force many of us to have these discussions? Despite prior efforts to integrate high-value care into hospital practices, long-standing habits and deep-seeded culture are challenging to overcome. Once clinicians develop practice habits, these behaviors tend to persist throughout their careers.² In many ways, COVID-19 was like hitting a “reset button” as health care professionals were forced to rapidly confront their deeply-ingrained hospital practices and habits. From new protocols for patient rounding to universal masking and social distancing to ground-breaking strategies like awake proning, the response to COVID-19 has represented an unprecedented rapid shift in practice. Previously, consequences of overuse were too downstream or too abstract for clinicians to see in real-time. However, now the ramifications of these choices hit closer to home with obvious potential consequences – like spreading a terrifying virus.

There are three interventions that hospitalists should consider implementing immediately in the COVID-19 era that accelerate us toward high-value care. Routine lab tests, imaging, and overnight vitals represent opportunities to provide patient-centered care while also remaining cognizant of resource utilization.

One area in hospital medicine that has proven challenging to significantly change practice has been routine daily labs. Patients on a general medical inpatient service who are clinically stable generally do not benefit from routine lab work.³ Avoiding these tests does not increase mortality or length of stay in clinically stable patients.³ However, despite this evidence, many patients with COVID-19 and other conditions experience lab draws that are not timed together and are done each morning out of “routine.” Choosing Wisely^® recommendations from the Society of Hospital Medicine encourage clinicians to question routine lab work for COVID-19 patients and to consider batching them, if possible.^3,4 In COVID-19 patients, the risks of not batching tests are magnified, both in terms of the patient-centered experience and for clinician safety. In essence, COVID-19 has pushed us to consider the elements of safety, PPE conservation and other factors, rather than making decisions based solely on their own comfort, convenience, or historical practice.

Clinicians are also reconsidering the necessity of imaging during the pandemic. The “Things We Do For No Reason” article on “Choosing Wisely^® in the COVID-19 era” highlights this well.⁴ It is more important now than ever to decide whether the timing and type of imaging will change management for your patient. Questions to ask include: Can a portable x-ray be used to avoid patient travel and will that CT scan help your patient? A posterior-anterior/lateral x-ray can potentially provide more information depending on the clinical scenario. However, we now need to assess if that extra information is going to impact patient management. Downstream consequences of these decisions include not only risks to the patient but also infectious exposures for staff and others during patient travel.

Lastly, overnight vital sign checks are another intervention we should analyze through this high-value care lens. The Journal of Hospital Medicine released a “Things We Do For No Reason” article about minimizing overnight vitals to promote uninterrupted sleep at night.⁵ Deleterious effects of interrupting the sleep of our patients include delirium and patient dissatisfaction.⁵ Studies have shown the benefits of this approach, yet the shift away from routine overnight vitals has not yet widely occurred.

COVID-19 has pressed us to save PPE and minimize exposure risk; hence, some centers are coordinating the timing of vitals with medication administration times, when feasible. In the stable patient recovering from COVID-19, overnight vitals may not be necessary, particularly if remote monitoring is available. This accomplishes multiple goals: Providing high quality patient care, reducing resource utilization, and minimizing patient nighttime interruptions – all culminating in high-value care.

Even though the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unforeseen emotional, physical, and financial challenges for the health care system and its workers, there may be a silver lining. The pandemic has sparked high-value care discussions, and the urgency of the crisis may be instilling new practices in our daily work. This virus has indeed left a terrible wake of destruction, but may also be a nudge to permanently change our culture of overuse to help us shape the habits of all trainees during this tumultuous time. This experience will hopefully culminate in a culture in which clinicians routinely ask, “How will this intervention help the patient?”
 

Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine, University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Linker is assistant professor of medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Moriates is associate professor of internal medicine, Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin.

References

1. Shrank W et al. Waste in The US healthcare system. JAMA. 2019;322(15):1501-9.

2. Chen C et al. Spending patterns in region of residency training and subsequent expenditures for care provided by practicing physicians for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2014;312(22):2385-93.

3. Eaton KP et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1833-9.

4. Cho H et al. Choosing Wisely in the COVID-19 Era: Preventing harm to healthcare workers. J Hosp Med. 2020;15(6):360-2.

5. Orlov N and Arora V. Things we do for no reason: Routine overnight vital sign checks. J Hosp Med. 2020;15(5):272-27.

On Jan. 13, 2 days after a drive-through vaccination “superstation” opened in San Diego, six people were treated for anaphylaxis after they received the Moderna vaccine, leading the California state epidemiologist to recommend pausing the administration of that particular lot.
 

A group of allergy and immunology experts and public health officials reviewed the cases, as well as an incident that occurred the day before, and concluded that at least some of the responses were angioedema, or swelling — a serious allergic reaction — but none were actually anaphylaxis. No similar clusters had occurred with the same vaccine lot in other states, and California resumed using the doses.

Yet questions remain about the reactions and the mechanisms for them. Some might have been triggered by an allergy to a vaccine component, most likely the polyethylene glycol (PEG) that stabilizes the lipid surrounding the mRNA, the key vaccine component in both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Another possible explanation is that some could be pseudoallergic reactions to a blood protein known as complement, a little-understood process that resembles an antigen-based reaction but doesn’t leave an immune memory and might not recur.

Cases of complement-activation-related pseudoallergy look like a severe allergic reaction but occur through a different mechanism and don’t require previous exposure to an allergen.

“It has the same signs and symptoms and is treated the same way, but it occurs through a different pathway,” explained Neal Halsey, MD, director emeritus of the Institute for Vaccine Safety and emeritus professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Pseudoallergies are not well understood, but they have been associated with reactions to the contrast media used in imaging, such as with MRI. “If people have had an anaphylaxis-type reaction following the injection of contrast-dye material, that is a strong signal that it might be a complement-activation-related pseudoallergy,” said Dr. Halsey, a member of the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network. “Those are the people who definitely need to consider seeing an allergist before getting the COVID vaccines.”

When Aleena Banerji, MD, clinical director of the allergy and clinical immunology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, talks to patients about vaccine reactions, she addresses the risk for COVID-19 infection. All of the people who developed allergies after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines recovered, but more than 445,000 Americans have died from COVID-19.

Most people with common allergies, such as to food or oral medications, don’t need to worry about reactions, said Dr. Banerji, lead author of a review that assessed the risk for allergic reactions to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
 

Investigating reactions

As investigators search for the answers to what causes reactions, transparency is crucial to trust, said Kathryn Edwards, MD, principal investigator of the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a vaccine safety network funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Unless the public knows that we’re really investigating and we’re taking this seriously, then I think the vaccine hesitancy is going to increase,” said Dr. Edwards, professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn.

First reports of anaphylaxis came quickly after COVID-19 vaccinations began. In the 2 weeks before the holidays, almost 2 million health care workers received the Pfizer vaccine, and 21 of them developed anaphylaxis, according to CDC researchers who reviewed case reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That rate of about 1 in 100,000 is 10 times higher than the occurrence with other vaccines. No deaths from anaphylaxis were reported.

As the vaccinations ramped up, the rate declined. As of Jan. 18, 50 cases of anaphylaxis were reported to VAERS after the administration of 9,943,247 Pfizer doses, for a rate of 5.0 per million, according to data presented at the Jan. 27 meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And 21 cases of anaphylaxis were reported to VAERS after the administration of 7,581,429 Moderna doses, for a rate of 2.8 per million.

The anaphylaxis occurred almost exclusively in women; only three of the VAERS anaphylaxis reports were from men. Only 24% had a history of anaphylaxis.

The earlier CDC report explored the potential link to allergies. One person with anaphylaxis had a history of allergy to iodinated contrast media, and others had allergies to various medications, vaccines, foods, and animals. The researchers reported 86 nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions and 61 nonallergic adverse events among the 175 case reports they reviewed as possible cases of severe allergic reaction.

Of 1,266 reports that VAERS received from Dec. 21 to Jan. 10, the CDC identified 108 possible cases of severe allergic reaction after the Moderna vaccine. Only 10 met the case definition of anaphylaxis put forward by the Brighton Collaboration, a vaccine safety organization. All but one case involved a history of allergies or allergic reactions; only five had a previously experienced anaphylaxis.

There were 47 nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions.

The San Diego cluster also met the Brighton case definition for anaphylaxis, Dr. Edwards reported. This discrepancy highlights the difficulties in characterizing vaccine reactions.

Measuring a pseudoallergic reaction is a challenge. It requires that a blood sample be drawn soon after the incident and then frozen to protect heat-sensitive blood markers, Dr. Edwards explained.

And as vaccinations rise, so do adverse-event reports. But unlike in clinical trials, there is no control group for comparison. That is why vaccine safety experts urge caution when evaluating events and, where possible, advise looking at background rates.

“A major way to determine whether the adverse event is causally related is to assess the incidence of the adverse event in vaccines versus nonvaccines,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, who directed the U.S. Immunization Program from 1988 to 2004 and is now associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center and professor of infectious diseases at Emory University in Atlanta. Public health officials could then identify vaccine risk factors, he said.

When a reaction occurs almost immediately after vaccination, vaccine safety investigators look for probable triggers. If allergy to PEG is the culprit in anaphylactic reactions, then the individuals would have had a previous exposure, perhaps from injectable medications, Dr. Edwards said.

It might be feasible to perform a skin test for allergy to PEG. “If the skin testing is negative, that doesn’t completely rule out allergy, but it can be used in the decision-making about giving the first or second vaccine dose,” Dr. Banerji said.

Other vaccines, such as childhood vaccines, contain polysorbate as a stabilizer, which has a similar chemical structure, and it’s not clear why someone would react to PEG but not to polysorbate, Dr. Edwards said.

Meanwhile, other illnesses and even deaths sometimes occur in the days after vaccination, but that doesn’t mean the vaccine caused them, cautioned Steve Black, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and cofounder of the Global Vaccine Data Network, an international vaccine safety collaboration.

“Different events and clusters of events will occur by chance alone, as these events can occur without vaccines. We need to not immediately assume that they’re due to the vaccine,” he said. “You don’t want to undermine the whole vaccine program every time something comes up and assume that it’s associated with the vaccine.”

The CDC only has three contraindications for the vaccines:

• Severe allergic reaction (such as anaphylaxis) after a previous dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components.
• Immediate allergic reaction of any severity to a previous dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components (including PEG).
• Immediate allergic reaction of any severity to polysorbate (due to potential cross-reactive hypersensitivity with PEG).

People who have had an immediate allergic reaction to other vaccines or injectable therapies should consider consulting with an allergist or immunologist before getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, the CDC advises.

The CDC also says that people with a history of anaphylaxis from any cause should be observed for 30 minutes after vaccination. Vaccination protocol calls for everyone else to wait on site for 15 minutes after vaccination.

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

On Jan. 13, 2 days after a drive-through vaccination “superstation” opened in San Diego, six people were treated for anaphylaxis after they received the Moderna vaccine, leading the California state epidemiologist to recommend pausing the administration of that particular lot.
 

A group of allergy and immunology experts and public health officials reviewed the cases, as well as an incident that occurred the day before, and concluded that at least some of the responses were angioedema, or swelling — a serious allergic reaction — but none were actually anaphylaxis. No similar clusters had occurred with the same vaccine lot in other states, and California resumed using the doses.

Yet questions remain about the reactions and the mechanisms for them. Some might have been triggered by an allergy to a vaccine component, most likely the polyethylene glycol (PEG) that stabilizes the lipid surrounding the mRNA, the key vaccine component in both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Another possible explanation is that some could be pseudoallergic reactions to a blood protein known as complement, a little-understood process that resembles an antigen-based reaction but doesn’t leave an immune memory and might not recur.

Cases of complement-activation-related pseudoallergy look like a severe allergic reaction but occur through a different mechanism and don’t require previous exposure to an allergen.

“It has the same signs and symptoms and is treated the same way, but it occurs through a different pathway,” explained Neal Halsey, MD, director emeritus of the Institute for Vaccine Safety and emeritus professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Pseudoallergies are not well understood, but they have been associated with reactions to the contrast media used in imaging, such as with MRI. “If people have had an anaphylaxis-type reaction following the injection of contrast-dye material, that is a strong signal that it might be a complement-activation-related pseudoallergy,” said Dr. Halsey, a member of the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network. “Those are the people who definitely need to consider seeing an allergist before getting the COVID vaccines.”

When Aleena Banerji, MD, clinical director of the allergy and clinical immunology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, talks to patients about vaccine reactions, she addresses the risk for COVID-19 infection. All of the people who developed allergies after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines recovered, but more than 445,000 Americans have died from COVID-19.

Most people with common allergies, such as to food or oral medications, don’t need to worry about reactions, said Dr. Banerji, lead author of a review that assessed the risk for allergic reactions to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
 

Investigating reactions

As investigators search for the answers to what causes reactions, transparency is crucial to trust, said Kathryn Edwards, MD, principal investigator of the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a vaccine safety network funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Unless the public knows that we’re really investigating and we’re taking this seriously, then I think the vaccine hesitancy is going to increase,” said Dr. Edwards, professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn.

First reports of anaphylaxis came quickly after COVID-19 vaccinations began. In the 2 weeks before the holidays, almost 2 million health care workers received the Pfizer vaccine, and 21 of them developed anaphylaxis, according to CDC researchers who reviewed case reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That rate of about 1 in 100,000 is 10 times higher than the occurrence with other vaccines. No deaths from anaphylaxis were reported.

As the vaccinations ramped up, the rate declined. As of Jan. 18, 50 cases of anaphylaxis were reported to VAERS after the administration of 9,943,247 Pfizer doses, for a rate of 5.0 per million, according to data presented at the Jan. 27 meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And 21 cases of anaphylaxis were reported to VAERS after the administration of 7,581,429 Moderna doses, for a rate of 2.8 per million.

The anaphylaxis occurred almost exclusively in women; only three of the VAERS anaphylaxis reports were from men. Only 24% had a history of anaphylaxis.

The earlier CDC report explored the potential link to allergies. One person with anaphylaxis had a history of allergy to iodinated contrast media, and others had allergies to various medications, vaccines, foods, and animals. The researchers reported 86 nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions and 61 nonallergic adverse events among the 175 case reports they reviewed as possible cases of severe allergic reaction.

Of 1,266 reports that VAERS received from Dec. 21 to Jan. 10, the CDC identified 108 possible cases of severe allergic reaction after the Moderna vaccine. Only 10 met the case definition of anaphylaxis put forward by the Brighton Collaboration, a vaccine safety organization. All but one case involved a history of allergies or allergic reactions; only five had a previously experienced anaphylaxis.

There were 47 nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions.

The San Diego cluster also met the Brighton case definition for anaphylaxis, Dr. Edwards reported. This discrepancy highlights the difficulties in characterizing vaccine reactions.

Measuring a pseudoallergic reaction is a challenge. It requires that a blood sample be drawn soon after the incident and then frozen to protect heat-sensitive blood markers, Dr. Edwards explained.

And as vaccinations rise, so do adverse-event reports. But unlike in clinical trials, there is no control group for comparison. That is why vaccine safety experts urge caution when evaluating events and, where possible, advise looking at background rates.

“A major way to determine whether the adverse event is causally related is to assess the incidence of the adverse event in vaccines versus nonvaccines,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, who directed the U.S. Immunization Program from 1988 to 2004 and is now associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center and professor of infectious diseases at Emory University in Atlanta. Public health officials could then identify vaccine risk factors, he said.

When a reaction occurs almost immediately after vaccination, vaccine safety investigators look for probable triggers. If allergy to PEG is the culprit in anaphylactic reactions, then the individuals would have had a previous exposure, perhaps from injectable medications, Dr. Edwards said.

It might be feasible to perform a skin test for allergy to PEG. “If the skin testing is negative, that doesn’t completely rule out allergy, but it can be used in the decision-making about giving the first or second vaccine dose,” Dr. Banerji said.

Other vaccines, such as childhood vaccines, contain polysorbate as a stabilizer, which has a similar chemical structure, and it’s not clear why someone would react to PEG but not to polysorbate, Dr. Edwards said.

Meanwhile, other illnesses and even deaths sometimes occur in the days after vaccination, but that doesn’t mean the vaccine caused them, cautioned Steve Black, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and cofounder of the Global Vaccine Data Network, an international vaccine safety collaboration.

“Different events and clusters of events will occur by chance alone, as these events can occur without vaccines. We need to not immediately assume that they’re due to the vaccine,” he said. “You don’t want to undermine the whole vaccine program every time something comes up and assume that it’s associated with the vaccine.”

The CDC only has three contraindications for the vaccines:

• Severe allergic reaction (such as anaphylaxis) after a previous dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components.
• Immediate allergic reaction of any severity to a previous dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components (including PEG).
• Immediate allergic reaction of any severity to polysorbate (due to potential cross-reactive hypersensitivity with PEG).

People who have had an immediate allergic reaction to other vaccines or injectable therapies should consider consulting with an allergist or immunologist before getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, the CDC advises.

The CDC also says that people with a history of anaphylaxis from any cause should be observed for 30 minutes after vaccination. Vaccination protocol calls for everyone else to wait on site for 15 minutes after vaccination.

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

On Jan. 13, 2 days after a drive-through vaccination “superstation” opened in San Diego, six people were treated for anaphylaxis after they received the Moderna vaccine, leading the California state epidemiologist to recommend pausing the administration of that particular lot.
 

A group of allergy and immunology experts and public health officials reviewed the cases, as well as an incident that occurred the day before, and concluded that at least some of the responses were angioedema, or swelling — a serious allergic reaction — but none were actually anaphylaxis. No similar clusters had occurred with the same vaccine lot in other states, and California resumed using the doses.

Yet questions remain about the reactions and the mechanisms for them. Some might have been triggered by an allergy to a vaccine component, most likely the polyethylene glycol (PEG) that stabilizes the lipid surrounding the mRNA, the key vaccine component in both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Another possible explanation is that some could be pseudoallergic reactions to a blood protein known as complement, a little-understood process that resembles an antigen-based reaction but doesn’t leave an immune memory and might not recur.

Cases of complement-activation-related pseudoallergy look like a severe allergic reaction but occur through a different mechanism and don’t require previous exposure to an allergen.

“It has the same signs and symptoms and is treated the same way, but it occurs through a different pathway,” explained Neal Halsey, MD, director emeritus of the Institute for Vaccine Safety and emeritus professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Pseudoallergies are not well understood, but they have been associated with reactions to the contrast media used in imaging, such as with MRI. “If people have had an anaphylaxis-type reaction following the injection of contrast-dye material, that is a strong signal that it might be a complement-activation-related pseudoallergy,” said Dr. Halsey, a member of the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network. “Those are the people who definitely need to consider seeing an allergist before getting the COVID vaccines.”

When Aleena Banerji, MD, clinical director of the allergy and clinical immunology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, talks to patients about vaccine reactions, she addresses the risk for COVID-19 infection. All of the people who developed allergies after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines recovered, but more than 445,000 Americans have died from COVID-19.

Most people with common allergies, such as to food or oral medications, don’t need to worry about reactions, said Dr. Banerji, lead author of a review that assessed the risk for allergic reactions to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
 

Investigating reactions

As investigators search for the answers to what causes reactions, transparency is crucial to trust, said Kathryn Edwards, MD, principal investigator of the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a vaccine safety network funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Unless the public knows that we’re really investigating and we’re taking this seriously, then I think the vaccine hesitancy is going to increase,” said Dr. Edwards, professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn.

First reports of anaphylaxis came quickly after COVID-19 vaccinations began. In the 2 weeks before the holidays, almost 2 million health care workers received the Pfizer vaccine, and 21 of them developed anaphylaxis, according to CDC researchers who reviewed case reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That rate of about 1 in 100,000 is 10 times higher than the occurrence with other vaccines. No deaths from anaphylaxis were reported.

As the vaccinations ramped up, the rate declined. As of Jan. 18, 50 cases of anaphylaxis were reported to VAERS after the administration of 9,943,247 Pfizer doses, for a rate of 5.0 per million, according to data presented at the Jan. 27 meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And 21 cases of anaphylaxis were reported to VAERS after the administration of 7,581,429 Moderna doses, for a rate of 2.8 per million.

The anaphylaxis occurred almost exclusively in women; only three of the VAERS anaphylaxis reports were from men. Only 24% had a history of anaphylaxis.

The earlier CDC report explored the potential link to allergies. One person with anaphylaxis had a history of allergy to iodinated contrast media, and others had allergies to various medications, vaccines, foods, and animals. The researchers reported 86 nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions and 61 nonallergic adverse events among the 175 case reports they reviewed as possible cases of severe allergic reaction.

Of 1,266 reports that VAERS received from Dec. 21 to Jan. 10, the CDC identified 108 possible cases of severe allergic reaction after the Moderna vaccine. Only 10 met the case definition of anaphylaxis put forward by the Brighton Collaboration, a vaccine safety organization. All but one case involved a history of allergies or allergic reactions; only five had a previously experienced anaphylaxis.

There were 47 nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions.

The San Diego cluster also met the Brighton case definition for anaphylaxis, Dr. Edwards reported. This discrepancy highlights the difficulties in characterizing vaccine reactions.

Measuring a pseudoallergic reaction is a challenge. It requires that a blood sample be drawn soon after the incident and then frozen to protect heat-sensitive blood markers, Dr. Edwards explained.

And as vaccinations rise, so do adverse-event reports. But unlike in clinical trials, there is no control group for comparison. That is why vaccine safety experts urge caution when evaluating events and, where possible, advise looking at background rates.

“A major way to determine whether the adverse event is causally related is to assess the incidence of the adverse event in vaccines versus nonvaccines,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, who directed the U.S. Immunization Program from 1988 to 2004 and is now associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center and professor of infectious diseases at Emory University in Atlanta. Public health officials could then identify vaccine risk factors, he said.

When a reaction occurs almost immediately after vaccination, vaccine safety investigators look for probable triggers. If allergy to PEG is the culprit in anaphylactic reactions, then the individuals would have had a previous exposure, perhaps from injectable medications, Dr. Edwards said.

It might be feasible to perform a skin test for allergy to PEG. “If the skin testing is negative, that doesn’t completely rule out allergy, but it can be used in the decision-making about giving the first or second vaccine dose,” Dr. Banerji said.

Other vaccines, such as childhood vaccines, contain polysorbate as a stabilizer, which has a similar chemical structure, and it’s not clear why someone would react to PEG but not to polysorbate, Dr. Edwards said.

Meanwhile, other illnesses and even deaths sometimes occur in the days after vaccination, but that doesn’t mean the vaccine caused them, cautioned Steve Black, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and cofounder of the Global Vaccine Data Network, an international vaccine safety collaboration.

“Different events and clusters of events will occur by chance alone, as these events can occur without vaccines. We need to not immediately assume that they’re due to the vaccine,” he said. “You don’t want to undermine the whole vaccine program every time something comes up and assume that it’s associated with the vaccine.”

The CDC only has three contraindications for the vaccines:

• Severe allergic reaction (such as anaphylaxis) after a previous dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components.
• Immediate allergic reaction of any severity to a previous dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components (including PEG).
• Immediate allergic reaction of any severity to polysorbate (due to potential cross-reactive hypersensitivity with PEG).

People who have had an immediate allergic reaction to other vaccines or injectable therapies should consider consulting with an allergist or immunologist before getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, the CDC advises.

The CDC also says that people with a history of anaphylaxis from any cause should be observed for 30 minutes after vaccination. Vaccination protocol calls for everyone else to wait on site for 15 minutes after vaccination.

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

New COVID-19 cases in children dropped for the third consecutive week, even as children continue to make up a larger share of all cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled almost 118,000 for the week of Jan. 29-Feb. 4, continuing the decline that began right after the United States topped 200,000 cases for the only time Jan. 8-14, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

For the latest week, however, children represented 16.0% of all new COVID-19 cases, continuing a 5-week increase that began in early December 2020, after the proportion had dropped to 12.6%, based on data collected from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. During the week of Sept. 11-17, children made up 16.9% of all cases, the highest level seen during the pandemic.

The 2.93 million cases that have been reported in children make up 12.9% of all cases since the pandemic began, and the overall rate of pediatric coronavirus infection is 3,899 cases per 100,000 children in the population. Taking a step down from the national level, 30 states are above that rate and 18 are below it, along with D.C., New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam (New York and Texas are excluded), the AAP and CHA reported.

There were 12 new COVID-19–related child deaths in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, bringing the total to 227. Nationally, 0.06% of all deaths have occurred in children, with rates ranging from 0.00% (11 states) to 0.26% (Nebraska) in the 45 jurisdictions, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Child hospitalizations rose to 1.9% of all hospitalizations after holding at 1.8% since mid-November in 25 reporting jurisdictions (24 states and New York City), but the hospitalization rate among children with COVID held at 0.8%, where it has been for the last 4 weeks. Hospitalization rates as high as 3.8% were recorded early in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases in children dropped for the third consecutive week, even as children continue to make up a larger share of all cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled almost 118,000 for the week of Jan. 29-Feb. 4, continuing the decline that began right after the United States topped 200,000 cases for the only time Jan. 8-14, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

For the latest week, however, children represented 16.0% of all new COVID-19 cases, continuing a 5-week increase that began in early December 2020, after the proportion had dropped to 12.6%, based on data collected from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. During the week of Sept. 11-17, children made up 16.9% of all cases, the highest level seen during the pandemic.

The 2.93 million cases that have been reported in children make up 12.9% of all cases since the pandemic began, and the overall rate of pediatric coronavirus infection is 3,899 cases per 100,000 children in the population. Taking a step down from the national level, 30 states are above that rate and 18 are below it, along with D.C., New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam (New York and Texas are excluded), the AAP and CHA reported.

There were 12 new COVID-19–related child deaths in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, bringing the total to 227. Nationally, 0.06% of all deaths have occurred in children, with rates ranging from 0.00% (11 states) to 0.26% (Nebraska) in the 45 jurisdictions, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Child hospitalizations rose to 1.9% of all hospitalizations after holding at 1.8% since mid-November in 25 reporting jurisdictions (24 states and New York City), but the hospitalization rate among children with COVID held at 0.8%, where it has been for the last 4 weeks. Hospitalization rates as high as 3.8% were recorded early in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases in children dropped for the third consecutive week, even as children continue to make up a larger share of all cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled almost 118,000 for the week of Jan. 29-Feb. 4, continuing the decline that began right after the United States topped 200,000 cases for the only time Jan. 8-14, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

For the latest week, however, children represented 16.0% of all new COVID-19 cases, continuing a 5-week increase that began in early December 2020, after the proportion had dropped to 12.6%, based on data collected from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. During the week of Sept. 11-17, children made up 16.9% of all cases, the highest level seen during the pandemic.

The 2.93 million cases that have been reported in children make up 12.9% of all cases since the pandemic began, and the overall rate of pediatric coronavirus infection is 3,899 cases per 100,000 children in the population. Taking a step down from the national level, 30 states are above that rate and 18 are below it, along with D.C., New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam (New York and Texas are excluded), the AAP and CHA reported.

There were 12 new COVID-19–related child deaths in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, bringing the total to 227. Nationally, 0.06% of all deaths have occurred in children, with rates ranging from 0.00% (11 states) to 0.26% (Nebraska) in the 45 jurisdictions, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Child hospitalizations rose to 1.9% of all hospitalizations after holding at 1.8% since mid-November in 25 reporting jurisdictions (24 states and New York City), but the hospitalization rate among children with COVID held at 0.8%, where it has been for the last 4 weeks. Hospitalization rates as high as 3.8% were recorded early in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com