Clinical

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is releasing new guidance on return-to-work rules for critical workers exposed to a COVID-19 case, or a suspected case, replacing previous guidance to stay home for 14 days.

“One of the most important things we can do is keep our critical workforce working,” CDC Director Robert Redfield said at a White House briefing on April 8. “In certain circumstances they can go back to work,” he said.

Neither Redfield nor the other governmental officials specified what counts as an essential worker, although it has generally referred to food-service and health care workers.

They must take their temperature before work, wear a facial mask at all times and practice social distancing when at work, the new guidance says. They cannot share headsets or other objects used near the face.

Employers must take the worker’s temperature and assess each one for symptoms before work starts, sending a worker home if he or she is sick. Employers must increase the cleaning of frequently used surfaces, increase air exchange in the building and test the use of face masks to be sure they do not interfere with workflow.

Pressed on whether he would reopen the country at the end of the 30-day Stop the Spread effort on April 30 — since one model has revised the U.S. death toll down from 100,000-240,000 to 61,000 — President Donald Trump said meetings will take place soon to discuss the decision and that he will ‘’rely very heavily” on health experts.

“We know now for sure that the mitigation we have been doing is having a positive effect,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, a coronavirus task force member and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is releasing new guidance on return-to-work rules for critical workers exposed to a COVID-19 case, or a suspected case, replacing previous guidance to stay home for 14 days.

“One of the most important things we can do is keep our critical workforce working,” CDC Director Robert Redfield said at a White House briefing on April 8. “In certain circumstances they can go back to work,” he said.

Neither Redfield nor the other governmental officials specified what counts as an essential worker, although it has generally referred to food-service and health care workers.

They must take their temperature before work, wear a facial mask at all times and practice social distancing when at work, the new guidance says. They cannot share headsets or other objects used near the face.

Employers must take the worker’s temperature and assess each one for symptoms before work starts, sending a worker home if he or she is sick. Employers must increase the cleaning of frequently used surfaces, increase air exchange in the building and test the use of face masks to be sure they do not interfere with workflow.

Pressed on whether he would reopen the country at the end of the 30-day Stop the Spread effort on April 30 — since one model has revised the U.S. death toll down from 100,000-240,000 to 61,000 — President Donald Trump said meetings will take place soon to discuss the decision and that he will ‘’rely very heavily” on health experts.

“We know now for sure that the mitigation we have been doing is having a positive effect,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, a coronavirus task force member and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is releasing new guidance on return-to-work rules for critical workers exposed to a COVID-19 case, or a suspected case, replacing previous guidance to stay home for 14 days.

“One of the most important things we can do is keep our critical workforce working,” CDC Director Robert Redfield said at a White House briefing on April 8. “In certain circumstances they can go back to work,” he said.

Neither Redfield nor the other governmental officials specified what counts as an essential worker, although it has generally referred to food-service and health care workers.

They must take their temperature before work, wear a facial mask at all times and practice social distancing when at work, the new guidance says. They cannot share headsets or other objects used near the face.

Employers must take the worker’s temperature and assess each one for symptoms before work starts, sending a worker home if he or she is sick. Employers must increase the cleaning of frequently used surfaces, increase air exchange in the building and test the use of face masks to be sure they do not interfere with workflow.

Pressed on whether he would reopen the country at the end of the 30-day Stop the Spread effort on April 30 — since one model has revised the U.S. death toll down from 100,000-240,000 to 61,000 — President Donald Trump said meetings will take place soon to discuss the decision and that he will ‘’rely very heavily” on health experts.

“We know now for sure that the mitigation we have been doing is having a positive effect,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, a coronavirus task force member and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.

In the latest issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended hepatitis C virus screening for all adults and all pregnant women – during each of their pregnancies – in areas where prevalence of the infection is 0.1% or greater.

That’s essentially the entire United States; there’s no state with a statewide adult prevalence below 0.1%, and “few settings are known to exist” otherwise, the CDC noted (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69(2):1-17).

The agency encouraged providers to consult state or local health departments or the CDC directly to determine local HCV prevalence. “As a general guide ... approximately 59% of anti-HCV positive persons are HCV RNA positive,” indicating active infection, the agency noted.

The advice was an expansion from the CDC’s last universal screening recommendation in 2012, which was limited to people born from 1945 to 1965; the incidence of acute infections has climbed since then and is highest now among younger people, so the guideline needed to be revisited, explained authors led by Sarah Schillie, MD, of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, Atlanta.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also recently recommended universal adult screening after previously limiting it to baby boomers.

As for pregnancy, the CDC’s past advice was to screen pregnant women with known risk factors, but that needed to be revisited as well. For one thing, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have since recommended testing all pregnant women.

But also, the CDC said, it’s an opportune time for screening because “many women only have access to health care during pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period,” when treatment, if needed, can be started. Plus, HCV status is important for management decisions, such as using amniocentesis in positive women instead of chorionic villus sampling.

The rest of CDC’s 2012 recommendations stand, including screening all people with risk factors and repeating screening while they persist. Also, “any person who requests hepatitis C testing should receive it, regardless of disclosure of risk,” because people might be reluctant to report things like IV drug use, the authors said.

Screening in the guidelines means an HCV antibody test, followed by a nucleic acid test to check for active infection. The CDC encouraged automatic reflex testing, meaning immediately checking antibody positive samples for HCV RNA. RNA in the blood indicates active, replicating virus.

The new recommendations penciled out in modeling, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for universal adult screening of approximately $36,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and an ICER of approximately $15,000 per QALY gained for pregnancy screening, where HCV prevalence is 0.1%; the 0.1% cost/benefit cutpoint was one of the reasons it was chosen as the prevalence threshold. An ICER under $50,000 is the conservative benchmark for cost-effectiveness, the authors noted.

There was no external funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schillie S et al. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69[2]:1-17).

In the latest issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended hepatitis C virus screening for all adults and all pregnant women – during each of their pregnancies – in areas where prevalence of the infection is 0.1% or greater.

That’s essentially the entire United States; there’s no state with a statewide adult prevalence below 0.1%, and “few settings are known to exist” otherwise, the CDC noted (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69(2):1-17).

The agency encouraged providers to consult state or local health departments or the CDC directly to determine local HCV prevalence. “As a general guide ... approximately 59% of anti-HCV positive persons are HCV RNA positive,” indicating active infection, the agency noted.

The advice was an expansion from the CDC’s last universal screening recommendation in 2012, which was limited to people born from 1945 to 1965; the incidence of acute infections has climbed since then and is highest now among younger people, so the guideline needed to be revisited, explained authors led by Sarah Schillie, MD, of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, Atlanta.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also recently recommended universal adult screening after previously limiting it to baby boomers.

As for pregnancy, the CDC’s past advice was to screen pregnant women with known risk factors, but that needed to be revisited as well. For one thing, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have since recommended testing all pregnant women.

But also, the CDC said, it’s an opportune time for screening because “many women only have access to health care during pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period,” when treatment, if needed, can be started. Plus, HCV status is important for management decisions, such as using amniocentesis in positive women instead of chorionic villus sampling.

The rest of CDC’s 2012 recommendations stand, including screening all people with risk factors and repeating screening while they persist. Also, “any person who requests hepatitis C testing should receive it, regardless of disclosure of risk,” because people might be reluctant to report things like IV drug use, the authors said.

Screening in the guidelines means an HCV antibody test, followed by a nucleic acid test to check for active infection. The CDC encouraged automatic reflex testing, meaning immediately checking antibody positive samples for HCV RNA. RNA in the blood indicates active, replicating virus.

The new recommendations penciled out in modeling, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for universal adult screening of approximately $36,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and an ICER of approximately $15,000 per QALY gained for pregnancy screening, where HCV prevalence is 0.1%; the 0.1% cost/benefit cutpoint was one of the reasons it was chosen as the prevalence threshold. An ICER under $50,000 is the conservative benchmark for cost-effectiveness, the authors noted.

There was no external funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schillie S et al. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69[2]:1-17).

In the latest issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended hepatitis C virus screening for all adults and all pregnant women – during each of their pregnancies – in areas where prevalence of the infection is 0.1% or greater.

That’s essentially the entire United States; there’s no state with a statewide adult prevalence below 0.1%, and “few settings are known to exist” otherwise, the CDC noted (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69(2):1-17).

The agency encouraged providers to consult state or local health departments or the CDC directly to determine local HCV prevalence. “As a general guide ... approximately 59% of anti-HCV positive persons are HCV RNA positive,” indicating active infection, the agency noted.

The advice was an expansion from the CDC’s last universal screening recommendation in 2012, which was limited to people born from 1945 to 1965; the incidence of acute infections has climbed since then and is highest now among younger people, so the guideline needed to be revisited, explained authors led by Sarah Schillie, MD, of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, Atlanta.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also recently recommended universal adult screening after previously limiting it to baby boomers.

As for pregnancy, the CDC’s past advice was to screen pregnant women with known risk factors, but that needed to be revisited as well. For one thing, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have since recommended testing all pregnant women.

But also, the CDC said, it’s an opportune time for screening because “many women only have access to health care during pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period,” when treatment, if needed, can be started. Plus, HCV status is important for management decisions, such as using amniocentesis in positive women instead of chorionic villus sampling.

The rest of CDC’s 2012 recommendations stand, including screening all people with risk factors and repeating screening while they persist. Also, “any person who requests hepatitis C testing should receive it, regardless of disclosure of risk,” because people might be reluctant to report things like IV drug use, the authors said.

Screening in the guidelines means an HCV antibody test, followed by a nucleic acid test to check for active infection. The CDC encouraged automatic reflex testing, meaning immediately checking antibody positive samples for HCV RNA. RNA in the blood indicates active, replicating virus.

The new recommendations penciled out in modeling, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for universal adult screening of approximately $36,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and an ICER of approximately $15,000 per QALY gained for pregnancy screening, where HCV prevalence is 0.1%; the 0.1% cost/benefit cutpoint was one of the reasons it was chosen as the prevalence threshold. An ICER under $50,000 is the conservative benchmark for cost-effectiveness, the authors noted.

There was no external funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schillie S et al. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69[2]:1-17).

The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is 4.6 per 100,000 population, and almost 90% of hospitalized patients have some type of underlying condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data collected by the newly created COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) put the exact prevalence of underlying conditions at 89.3% for patients hospitalized during March 1-30, 2020, Shikha Garg, MD, of the CDC’s COVID-NET team and associates wrote in the MMWR.

The hospitalization rate, based on COVID-NET data for March 1-28, increased with patient age. Those aged 65 years and older were admitted at a rate of 13.8 per 100,000, with 50- to 64-year-olds next at 7.4 per 100,000 and 18- to 49-year-olds at 2.5, they wrote.

The patients aged 65 years and older also were the most likely to have one or more underlying conditions, at 94.4%, compared with 86.4% of those aged 50-64 years and 85.4% of individuals who were aged 18-44 years, the investigators reported.

Hypertension was the most common comorbidity among the oldest patients, with a prevalence of 72.6%, followed by cardiovascular disease at 50.8% and obesity at 41%. In the two younger groups, obesity was the condition most often seen in COVID-19 patients, with prevalences of 49% in 50- to 64-year-olds and 59% in those aged 18-49, Dr. Garg and associates wrote.

“These findings underscore the importance of preventive measures (e.g., social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and wearing face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain) to protect older adults and persons with underlying medical conditions,” the investigators wrote.

COVID-NET surveillance includes laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations in 99 counties in 14 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah. Those counties represent about 10% of the U.S. population.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garg S et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 8;69(early release):1-7.

The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is 4.6 per 100,000 population, and almost 90% of hospitalized patients have some type of underlying condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data collected by the newly created COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) put the exact prevalence of underlying conditions at 89.3% for patients hospitalized during March 1-30, 2020, Shikha Garg, MD, of the CDC’s COVID-NET team and associates wrote in the MMWR.

The hospitalization rate, based on COVID-NET data for March 1-28, increased with patient age. Those aged 65 years and older were admitted at a rate of 13.8 per 100,000, with 50- to 64-year-olds next at 7.4 per 100,000 and 18- to 49-year-olds at 2.5, they wrote.

The patients aged 65 years and older also were the most likely to have one or more underlying conditions, at 94.4%, compared with 86.4% of those aged 50-64 years and 85.4% of individuals who were aged 18-44 years, the investigators reported.

Hypertension was the most common comorbidity among the oldest patients, with a prevalence of 72.6%, followed by cardiovascular disease at 50.8% and obesity at 41%. In the two younger groups, obesity was the condition most often seen in COVID-19 patients, with prevalences of 49% in 50- to 64-year-olds and 59% in those aged 18-49, Dr. Garg and associates wrote.

“These findings underscore the importance of preventive measures (e.g., social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and wearing face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain) to protect older adults and persons with underlying medical conditions,” the investigators wrote.

COVID-NET surveillance includes laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations in 99 counties in 14 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah. Those counties represent about 10% of the U.S. population.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garg S et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 8;69(early release):1-7.

The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is 4.6 per 100,000 population, and almost 90% of hospitalized patients have some type of underlying condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data collected by the newly created COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) put the exact prevalence of underlying conditions at 89.3% for patients hospitalized during March 1-30, 2020, Shikha Garg, MD, of the CDC’s COVID-NET team and associates wrote in the MMWR.

The hospitalization rate, based on COVID-NET data for March 1-28, increased with patient age. Those aged 65 years and older were admitted at a rate of 13.8 per 100,000, with 50- to 64-year-olds next at 7.4 per 100,000 and 18- to 49-year-olds at 2.5, they wrote.

The patients aged 65 years and older also were the most likely to have one or more underlying conditions, at 94.4%, compared with 86.4% of those aged 50-64 years and 85.4% of individuals who were aged 18-44 years, the investigators reported.

Hypertension was the most common comorbidity among the oldest patients, with a prevalence of 72.6%, followed by cardiovascular disease at 50.8% and obesity at 41%. In the two younger groups, obesity was the condition most often seen in COVID-19 patients, with prevalences of 49% in 50- to 64-year-olds and 59% in those aged 18-49, Dr. Garg and associates wrote.

“These findings underscore the importance of preventive measures (e.g., social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and wearing face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain) to protect older adults and persons with underlying medical conditions,” the investigators wrote.

COVID-NET surveillance includes laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations in 99 counties in 14 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah. Those counties represent about 10% of the U.S. population.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garg S et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 8;69(early release):1-7.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with severe mental illness (SMI) and the healthcare systems that serve them, one expert warns.

However, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, Georgia, says there are strategies that can help minimize the risk of exposure and transmission of the virus in SMI patients.

In a viewpoint published online April 3 in JAMA Psychiatry, Druss, professor and chair in mental health, notes that “disasters disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable populations, and patients with serious mental illness may be among the hardest hit.”

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Druss said patients with SMI have “a whole range of vulnerabilities” that put them at higher risk for COVID-19.

These include high rates of smoking, cardiovascular and lung disease, poverty, and homelessness. In fact, estimates show 25% of the US homeless population has a serious mental illness, said Druss.

“You have to keep an eye on these overlapping circles of vulnerable populations: those with disabilities in general and people with serious mental illness in particular; people who are poor; and people who have limited social networks,” he said.
 

Tailored Communication Vital

It’s important for patients with SMI to have up-to-date, accurate information about mitigating risk and knowing when to seek medical treatment for COVID-19, Druss noted.

Communication materials developed for the general population need to be tailored to address limited health literacy and challenges in implementing physical distancing recommendations, he said.

Patients with SMI also need support in maintaining healthy habits, including diet and physical activity, as well as self-management of chronic mental and physical health conditions, he added.

He noted that even in the face of current constraints on mental health care delivery, ensuring access to services is essential. The increased emphasis on caring for, and keeping in touch with, SMI patients through telepsychiatry is one effective way of addressing this issue, said Druss.

Since mental health clinicians are often the first responders for people with SMI, these professionals need training to recognize the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and learn basic strategies to mitigate the spread of disease, not only for their patients but also for themselves, he added.

Ensuring the safety and well-being of mental health care providers is “a clear priority,” he said. “Any given provider is going to be responsible for many, many patients, so keeping physically and mentally healthy will be vital.”

In order to ease the strain of COVID-19 on community mental health centers and psychiatric hospitals, which are at high risk for outbreaks and have limited capacity to treat medical illness, these institutions need contingency plans to detect and contain outbreaks if they occur.

“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Druss writes.

Voice of Experience

Commenting on the article for Medscape Medical News, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, distinguished advisor for the New York State Office of Mental Health and adjunct professor at the Columbia School of Public Health in New York City, commended Druss for highlighting the need for more mental health services during the pandemic.

However, although Druss “has made some very good general statements,” these don’t really apply “in the wake of a real catastrophic event, which is what we’re having here,” Sederer said.

Sederer led Project Liberty, a massive mental health disaster response effort established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. Druss seems to infer that the mental health workforce is capable of expanding, but “what we learned is that the mental health system in this country is vastly undersupplied,” said Sederer.

During a disaster, the system “actually contracts” because clinics close and workforces are reduced. In this environment, some patients with a serious mental illness let their treatment “erode,” Sederer said.

While Druss called for clinics to have protocols for identifying and referring patients at risk for COVID-19, Sederer pointed out that “all the clinics are closed.”

However, he did note that many mental health clinics and hospitals are continuing to reach out to their vulnerable patients during this crisis.

On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Sederer and colleagues published an article in Psychiatric Services that highlighted the “lessons learned” from the Project Liberty experience. One of the biggest lessons was the need for crisis counseling, which is “a recognized, proven intervention,” said Sederer.

Such an initiative involves trained outreach workers, identifying the untreated seriously mentally ill in the community, and “literally shepherding them to services,” he added.

In this current pandemic, it would be up to the federal government to mobilize such a crisis counseling initiative, Sederer explained.

Sederer noted that rapid relief groups like the Federal Emergency Management Agency do not cover mental health services. In order to be effective, disaster-related mental health services need to include funding for treatment, including focused therapies and medication.

Druss and Sederer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with severe mental illness (SMI) and the healthcare systems that serve them, one expert warns.

However, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, Georgia, says there are strategies that can help minimize the risk of exposure and transmission of the virus in SMI patients.

In a viewpoint published online April 3 in JAMA Psychiatry, Druss, professor and chair in mental health, notes that “disasters disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable populations, and patients with serious mental illness may be among the hardest hit.”

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Druss said patients with SMI have “a whole range of vulnerabilities” that put them at higher risk for COVID-19.

These include high rates of smoking, cardiovascular and lung disease, poverty, and homelessness. In fact, estimates show 25% of the US homeless population has a serious mental illness, said Druss.

“You have to keep an eye on these overlapping circles of vulnerable populations: those with disabilities in general and people with serious mental illness in particular; people who are poor; and people who have limited social networks,” he said.
 

Tailored Communication Vital

It’s important for patients with SMI to have up-to-date, accurate information about mitigating risk and knowing when to seek medical treatment for COVID-19, Druss noted.

Communication materials developed for the general population need to be tailored to address limited health literacy and challenges in implementing physical distancing recommendations, he said.

Patients with SMI also need support in maintaining healthy habits, including diet and physical activity, as well as self-management of chronic mental and physical health conditions, he added.

He noted that even in the face of current constraints on mental health care delivery, ensuring access to services is essential. The increased emphasis on caring for, and keeping in touch with, SMI patients through telepsychiatry is one effective way of addressing this issue, said Druss.

Since mental health clinicians are often the first responders for people with SMI, these professionals need training to recognize the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and learn basic strategies to mitigate the spread of disease, not only for their patients but also for themselves, he added.

Ensuring the safety and well-being of mental health care providers is “a clear priority,” he said. “Any given provider is going to be responsible for many, many patients, so keeping physically and mentally healthy will be vital.”

In order to ease the strain of COVID-19 on community mental health centers and psychiatric hospitals, which are at high risk for outbreaks and have limited capacity to treat medical illness, these institutions need contingency plans to detect and contain outbreaks if they occur.

“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Druss writes.

Voice of Experience

Commenting on the article for Medscape Medical News, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, distinguished advisor for the New York State Office of Mental Health and adjunct professor at the Columbia School of Public Health in New York City, commended Druss for highlighting the need for more mental health services during the pandemic.

However, although Druss “has made some very good general statements,” these don’t really apply “in the wake of a real catastrophic event, which is what we’re having here,” Sederer said.

Sederer led Project Liberty, a massive mental health disaster response effort established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. Druss seems to infer that the mental health workforce is capable of expanding, but “what we learned is that the mental health system in this country is vastly undersupplied,” said Sederer.

During a disaster, the system “actually contracts” because clinics close and workforces are reduced. In this environment, some patients with a serious mental illness let their treatment “erode,” Sederer said.

While Druss called for clinics to have protocols for identifying and referring patients at risk for COVID-19, Sederer pointed out that “all the clinics are closed.”

However, he did note that many mental health clinics and hospitals are continuing to reach out to their vulnerable patients during this crisis.

On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Sederer and colleagues published an article in Psychiatric Services that highlighted the “lessons learned” from the Project Liberty experience. One of the biggest lessons was the need for crisis counseling, which is “a recognized, proven intervention,” said Sederer.

Such an initiative involves trained outreach workers, identifying the untreated seriously mentally ill in the community, and “literally shepherding them to services,” he added.

In this current pandemic, it would be up to the federal government to mobilize such a crisis counseling initiative, Sederer explained.

Sederer noted that rapid relief groups like the Federal Emergency Management Agency do not cover mental health services. In order to be effective, disaster-related mental health services need to include funding for treatment, including focused therapies and medication.

Druss and Sederer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with severe mental illness (SMI) and the healthcare systems that serve them, one expert warns.

However, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, Georgia, says there are strategies that can help minimize the risk of exposure and transmission of the virus in SMI patients.

In a viewpoint published online April 3 in JAMA Psychiatry, Druss, professor and chair in mental health, notes that “disasters disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable populations, and patients with serious mental illness may be among the hardest hit.”

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Druss said patients with SMI have “a whole range of vulnerabilities” that put them at higher risk for COVID-19.

These include high rates of smoking, cardiovascular and lung disease, poverty, and homelessness. In fact, estimates show 25% of the US homeless population has a serious mental illness, said Druss.

“You have to keep an eye on these overlapping circles of vulnerable populations: those with disabilities in general and people with serious mental illness in particular; people who are poor; and people who have limited social networks,” he said.
 

Tailored Communication Vital

It’s important for patients with SMI to have up-to-date, accurate information about mitigating risk and knowing when to seek medical treatment for COVID-19, Druss noted.

Communication materials developed for the general population need to be tailored to address limited health literacy and challenges in implementing physical distancing recommendations, he said.

Patients with SMI also need support in maintaining healthy habits, including diet and physical activity, as well as self-management of chronic mental and physical health conditions, he added.

He noted that even in the face of current constraints on mental health care delivery, ensuring access to services is essential. The increased emphasis on caring for, and keeping in touch with, SMI patients through telepsychiatry is one effective way of addressing this issue, said Druss.

Since mental health clinicians are often the first responders for people with SMI, these professionals need training to recognize the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and learn basic strategies to mitigate the spread of disease, not only for their patients but also for themselves, he added.

Ensuring the safety and well-being of mental health care providers is “a clear priority,” he said. “Any given provider is going to be responsible for many, many patients, so keeping physically and mentally healthy will be vital.”

In order to ease the strain of COVID-19 on community mental health centers and psychiatric hospitals, which are at high risk for outbreaks and have limited capacity to treat medical illness, these institutions need contingency plans to detect and contain outbreaks if they occur.

“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Druss writes.

Voice of Experience

Commenting on the article for Medscape Medical News, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, distinguished advisor for the New York State Office of Mental Health and adjunct professor at the Columbia School of Public Health in New York City, commended Druss for highlighting the need for more mental health services during the pandemic.

However, although Druss “has made some very good general statements,” these don’t really apply “in the wake of a real catastrophic event, which is what we’re having here,” Sederer said.

Sederer led Project Liberty, a massive mental health disaster response effort established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. Druss seems to infer that the mental health workforce is capable of expanding, but “what we learned is that the mental health system in this country is vastly undersupplied,” said Sederer.

During a disaster, the system “actually contracts” because clinics close and workforces are reduced. In this environment, some patients with a serious mental illness let their treatment “erode,” Sederer said.

While Druss called for clinics to have protocols for identifying and referring patients at risk for COVID-19, Sederer pointed out that “all the clinics are closed.”

However, he did note that many mental health clinics and hospitals are continuing to reach out to their vulnerable patients during this crisis.

On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Sederer and colleagues published an article in Psychiatric Services that highlighted the “lessons learned” from the Project Liberty experience. One of the biggest lessons was the need for crisis counseling, which is “a recognized, proven intervention,” said Sederer.

Such an initiative involves trained outreach workers, identifying the untreated seriously mentally ill in the community, and “literally shepherding them to services,” he added.

In this current pandemic, it would be up to the federal government to mobilize such a crisis counseling initiative, Sederer explained.

Sederer noted that rapid relief groups like the Federal Emergency Management Agency do not cover mental health services. In order to be effective, disaster-related mental health services need to include funding for treatment, including focused therapies and medication.

Druss and Sederer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first protocol for the use of lung ultrasound to quantitatively and reproducibly assess the degree of lung involvement in patients suspected of having COVID-19 infection has been published by a team of Italian experts with experience using the technology on the front line.

Particularly in Spain and Italy — where the pandemic has struck hardest in Europe — hard-pressed clinicians seeking to quickly understand whether patients with seemingly mild disease could be harboring more serious lung involvement have increasingly relied upon lung ultrasound in the emergency room.

Now Libertario Demi, PhD, head of the ultrasound laboratory, University of Trento, Italy, and colleagues have developed a protocol, published online March 30 in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine, to standardize practice.

Their research, which builds on previous work by the team, offers broad agreement with industry-led algorithms and emphasizes the use of wireless, handheld ultrasound devices, ideally consisting of a separate probe and tablet, to make sterilization easy.

Firms such as the Butterfly Network, Phillips, Clarius, GE Healthcare, and Siemens are among numerous companies that produce one or more such devices, including some that are completely integrated.
 

Not Universally Accepted

However, lung ultrasound is not yet universally accepted as a tool for diagnosing pneumonia in the context of COVID-19 and triaging patients.

The National Health Service in England does not even mention lung ultrasound in its radiology decision tool for suspected COVID-19, specifying instead chest X-ray as the first-line diagnostic imaging tool, with CT scanning in equivocal cases.

But Giovanni Volpicelli, MD, University Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga, Turin, Italy, who has previously described his experience to Medscape Medical News, says many patients with COVID-19 in his hospital presented with a negative chest X-ray but were found to have interstitial pneumonia on lung ultrasound.

Moreover, while CT scan remains the gold standard, the risk of nosocomial infection is more easily controlled if patients do not have to be transported to the radiology department but remain in the emergency room and instead undergo lung ultrasound there, he stressed.
 

Experts Share Experience of Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19

In developing and publishing their protocol, Demi, senior author of the article, and other colleagues from the heavily affected cities of Northern Italy, say their aim is “to share our experience and to propose a standardization with respect to the use of lung ultrasound in the management of COVID-19 patients.”

They reviewed an anonymized database of around 60,000 ultrasound images of confirmed COVID-19 cases and reviewers were blinded to patients’ clinical backgrounds.

For image acquisition, the authors recommend scanning 14 areas in each patient for 10 seconds, making the scans intercostal to cover the widest possible surface area.

They advise the use of a single focal point on the pleural line, which they write, optimizes the beam shape for observing the lung surface.

The authors also urge that the mechanical index (MI) be kept low because high MIs sustained for long periods “may result in damaging the lung.”

They also stress that cosmetic filters and modalities such as harmonic imaging, contrast, doppler, and compounding should be avoided, alongside saturation phenomena.
 

What Constitutes Intermediate Disease?

Once the images have been taken, they are scored on a 0-3 scale for each of the 14 areas, with no weighting on any individual area.

A score of 0 is given when the pleural line is continuous and regular, with the presence of A-lines, denoting that the lungs are unaffected.

An area is given a score of 3 when the scan shows dense and largely extended white lung tissue, with or without consolidations, indicating severe disease.

At both ends of this spectrum, there is agreement between the Italian protocol and an algorithm developed by the Butterfly Network.

However, the two differ when it comes to scoring intermediate cases. On the Butterfly algorithm, the suggestion is to look for B-lines, caused by fluid and cellular infiltration into the interstitium, and to weigh that against the need for supplementary oxygen.

The Italian team, in contrast, says a score of 1 is given when the pleural line is indented, with vertical areas of white visible below.

A score of 2 is given when the pleural line is broken, with small to large areas of consolidation and associated areas of white below.

Demi told Medscape Medical News that they did not refer to B-lines in their protocol as their visibility depends entirely on the imaging frequency and the probe used.

“This means that scoring on B-lines, people with different machines would give completely different scores for the same patient.”

He continued: “We prefer to refer to horizontal and vertical artifacts, and provide an analysis of the patterns, which is related to the physics of the interactions between the ultrasound waves and lung surface.”

In response, Mike Stone, MD, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and director of education at Butterfly, said there appears to be wide variation in lung findings that “may or may not correlate with the severity of symptoms.”

He told Medscape Medical News it is “hard to know exactly if someone with pure B-lines will progress to serious illness or if someone with some subpleural consolidations will do well.”
 

A Negative Ultrasound Is the Most Useful

Volpicelli believes that, in any case, any patient with an intermediate pattern will require further diagnosis, such as other imaging modalities and blood exams, and the real role of lung ultrasound is in assessing patients at either end of the spectrum.

“In other words, there are situations where lung ultrasound can be considered definitive,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For instance, if I see a patient with mild signs of the disease, just fever, and I perform lung ultrasound and see nothing, lung ultrasound rules out pneumonia.”

“This patient may have COVID-19 of course, but they do not have pneumonia, and they can be treated at home, awaiting the result of the swab test. And this is useful because you can reduce the burden in the emergency department.”

Volpicelli continued: “On the other hand, there are patients with acute respiratory failure in respiratory distress. If the lung ultrasound is normal, you can rule out COVID-19 and you need to use other diagnostic procedures to understand the problem.”

“This is also very important for us because it’s crucial to be able to remove the patient from the isolation area and perform CT scan, chest radiography, and all the other diagnostic tools that we need.”
 

Are Wireless Machines Needed? Not Necessarily

With regard to the use of wireless technology, the Italian team says that “in the setting of COVID-19, wireless probes and tablets represent the most appropriate ultrasound equipment” because they can “easily be wrapped in single-use plastic covers, reducing the risk of contamination,” and making sterilization easy.

Stone suggests that integrated portable devices, however, are no more likely to cause cross-contamination than separate probes and tablets, as they can fit within a sterile sheath as a single unit.

Volpicelli, for his part, doesn’t like what he sees as undue focus on wireless devices for lung ultrasound in the COVID-19 protocols.

He is concerned that recommending them as the best approach may be sending out the wrong message, which could be very “dangerous” as people may then think they cannot perform this screening with standard ultrasound machines.

For him, the issue of cross contamination with standard lung ultrasound machines is “nonexistent. Cleaning the machine is quite easy and I do it hundreds of times per week.”

He does acknowledge, however, that if the lung ultrasound is performed under certain circumstances, for example when a patient is using a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, “the risk of having the machine contaminated is a little bit higher.”

“In these situations...we have a more intensive cleaning procedure to avoid cross-contamination.”

He stressed: “Not all centers have wireless machines, whereas a normal machine is usually in all hospitals.”

“The advantages of using lung ultrasound [in COVID-19] are too great to be limited by something that is not important in my opinion,” he concluded.

Stone is director of education at the Butterfly Network. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first protocol for the use of lung ultrasound to quantitatively and reproducibly assess the degree of lung involvement in patients suspected of having COVID-19 infection has been published by a team of Italian experts with experience using the technology on the front line.

Particularly in Spain and Italy — where the pandemic has struck hardest in Europe — hard-pressed clinicians seeking to quickly understand whether patients with seemingly mild disease could be harboring more serious lung involvement have increasingly relied upon lung ultrasound in the emergency room.

Now Libertario Demi, PhD, head of the ultrasound laboratory, University of Trento, Italy, and colleagues have developed a protocol, published online March 30 in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine, to standardize practice.

Their research, which builds on previous work by the team, offers broad agreement with industry-led algorithms and emphasizes the use of wireless, handheld ultrasound devices, ideally consisting of a separate probe and tablet, to make sterilization easy.

Firms such as the Butterfly Network, Phillips, Clarius, GE Healthcare, and Siemens are among numerous companies that produce one or more such devices, including some that are completely integrated.
 

Not Universally Accepted

However, lung ultrasound is not yet universally accepted as a tool for diagnosing pneumonia in the context of COVID-19 and triaging patients.

The National Health Service in England does not even mention lung ultrasound in its radiology decision tool for suspected COVID-19, specifying instead chest X-ray as the first-line diagnostic imaging tool, with CT scanning in equivocal cases.

But Giovanni Volpicelli, MD, University Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga, Turin, Italy, who has previously described his experience to Medscape Medical News, says many patients with COVID-19 in his hospital presented with a negative chest X-ray but were found to have interstitial pneumonia on lung ultrasound.

Moreover, while CT scan remains the gold standard, the risk of nosocomial infection is more easily controlled if patients do not have to be transported to the radiology department but remain in the emergency room and instead undergo lung ultrasound there, he stressed.
 

Experts Share Experience of Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19

In developing and publishing their protocol, Demi, senior author of the article, and other colleagues from the heavily affected cities of Northern Italy, say their aim is “to share our experience and to propose a standardization with respect to the use of lung ultrasound in the management of COVID-19 patients.”

They reviewed an anonymized database of around 60,000 ultrasound images of confirmed COVID-19 cases and reviewers were blinded to patients’ clinical backgrounds.

For image acquisition, the authors recommend scanning 14 areas in each patient for 10 seconds, making the scans intercostal to cover the widest possible surface area.

They advise the use of a single focal point on the pleural line, which they write, optimizes the beam shape for observing the lung surface.

The authors also urge that the mechanical index (MI) be kept low because high MIs sustained for long periods “may result in damaging the lung.”

They also stress that cosmetic filters and modalities such as harmonic imaging, contrast, doppler, and compounding should be avoided, alongside saturation phenomena.
 

What Constitutes Intermediate Disease?

Once the images have been taken, they are scored on a 0-3 scale for each of the 14 areas, with no weighting on any individual area.

A score of 0 is given when the pleural line is continuous and regular, with the presence of A-lines, denoting that the lungs are unaffected.

An area is given a score of 3 when the scan shows dense and largely extended white lung tissue, with or without consolidations, indicating severe disease.

At both ends of this spectrum, there is agreement between the Italian protocol and an algorithm developed by the Butterfly Network.

However, the two differ when it comes to scoring intermediate cases. On the Butterfly algorithm, the suggestion is to look for B-lines, caused by fluid and cellular infiltration into the interstitium, and to weigh that against the need for supplementary oxygen.

The Italian team, in contrast, says a score of 1 is given when the pleural line is indented, with vertical areas of white visible below.

A score of 2 is given when the pleural line is broken, with small to large areas of consolidation and associated areas of white below.

Demi told Medscape Medical News that they did not refer to B-lines in their protocol as their visibility depends entirely on the imaging frequency and the probe used.

“This means that scoring on B-lines, people with different machines would give completely different scores for the same patient.”

He continued: “We prefer to refer to horizontal and vertical artifacts, and provide an analysis of the patterns, which is related to the physics of the interactions between the ultrasound waves and lung surface.”

In response, Mike Stone, MD, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and director of education at Butterfly, said there appears to be wide variation in lung findings that “may or may not correlate with the severity of symptoms.”

He told Medscape Medical News it is “hard to know exactly if someone with pure B-lines will progress to serious illness or if someone with some subpleural consolidations will do well.”
 

A Negative Ultrasound Is the Most Useful

Volpicelli believes that, in any case, any patient with an intermediate pattern will require further diagnosis, such as other imaging modalities and blood exams, and the real role of lung ultrasound is in assessing patients at either end of the spectrum.

“In other words, there are situations where lung ultrasound can be considered definitive,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For instance, if I see a patient with mild signs of the disease, just fever, and I perform lung ultrasound and see nothing, lung ultrasound rules out pneumonia.”

“This patient may have COVID-19 of course, but they do not have pneumonia, and they can be treated at home, awaiting the result of the swab test. And this is useful because you can reduce the burden in the emergency department.”

Volpicelli continued: “On the other hand, there are patients with acute respiratory failure in respiratory distress. If the lung ultrasound is normal, you can rule out COVID-19 and you need to use other diagnostic procedures to understand the problem.”

“This is also very important for us because it’s crucial to be able to remove the patient from the isolation area and perform CT scan, chest radiography, and all the other diagnostic tools that we need.”
 

Are Wireless Machines Needed? Not Necessarily

With regard to the use of wireless technology, the Italian team says that “in the setting of COVID-19, wireless probes and tablets represent the most appropriate ultrasound equipment” because they can “easily be wrapped in single-use plastic covers, reducing the risk of contamination,” and making sterilization easy.

Stone suggests that integrated portable devices, however, are no more likely to cause cross-contamination than separate probes and tablets, as they can fit within a sterile sheath as a single unit.

Volpicelli, for his part, doesn’t like what he sees as undue focus on wireless devices for lung ultrasound in the COVID-19 protocols.

He is concerned that recommending them as the best approach may be sending out the wrong message, which could be very “dangerous” as people may then think they cannot perform this screening with standard ultrasound machines.

For him, the issue of cross contamination with standard lung ultrasound machines is “nonexistent. Cleaning the machine is quite easy and I do it hundreds of times per week.”

He does acknowledge, however, that if the lung ultrasound is performed under certain circumstances, for example when a patient is using a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, “the risk of having the machine contaminated is a little bit higher.”

“In these situations...we have a more intensive cleaning procedure to avoid cross-contamination.”

He stressed: “Not all centers have wireless machines, whereas a normal machine is usually in all hospitals.”

“The advantages of using lung ultrasound [in COVID-19] are too great to be limited by something that is not important in my opinion,” he concluded.

Stone is director of education at the Butterfly Network. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first protocol for the use of lung ultrasound to quantitatively and reproducibly assess the degree of lung involvement in patients suspected of having COVID-19 infection has been published by a team of Italian experts with experience using the technology on the front line.

Particularly in Spain and Italy — where the pandemic has struck hardest in Europe — hard-pressed clinicians seeking to quickly understand whether patients with seemingly mild disease could be harboring more serious lung involvement have increasingly relied upon lung ultrasound in the emergency room.

Now Libertario Demi, PhD, head of the ultrasound laboratory, University of Trento, Italy, and colleagues have developed a protocol, published online March 30 in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine, to standardize practice.

Their research, which builds on previous work by the team, offers broad agreement with industry-led algorithms and emphasizes the use of wireless, handheld ultrasound devices, ideally consisting of a separate probe and tablet, to make sterilization easy.

Firms such as the Butterfly Network, Phillips, Clarius, GE Healthcare, and Siemens are among numerous companies that produce one or more such devices, including some that are completely integrated.
 

Not Universally Accepted

However, lung ultrasound is not yet universally accepted as a tool for diagnosing pneumonia in the context of COVID-19 and triaging patients.

The National Health Service in England does not even mention lung ultrasound in its radiology decision tool for suspected COVID-19, specifying instead chest X-ray as the first-line diagnostic imaging tool, with CT scanning in equivocal cases.

But Giovanni Volpicelli, MD, University Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga, Turin, Italy, who has previously described his experience to Medscape Medical News, says many patients with COVID-19 in his hospital presented with a negative chest X-ray but were found to have interstitial pneumonia on lung ultrasound.

Moreover, while CT scan remains the gold standard, the risk of nosocomial infection is more easily controlled if patients do not have to be transported to the radiology department but remain in the emergency room and instead undergo lung ultrasound there, he stressed.
 

Experts Share Experience of Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19

In developing and publishing their protocol, Demi, senior author of the article, and other colleagues from the heavily affected cities of Northern Italy, say their aim is “to share our experience and to propose a standardization with respect to the use of lung ultrasound in the management of COVID-19 patients.”

They reviewed an anonymized database of around 60,000 ultrasound images of confirmed COVID-19 cases and reviewers were blinded to patients’ clinical backgrounds.

For image acquisition, the authors recommend scanning 14 areas in each patient for 10 seconds, making the scans intercostal to cover the widest possible surface area.

They advise the use of a single focal point on the pleural line, which they write, optimizes the beam shape for observing the lung surface.

The authors also urge that the mechanical index (MI) be kept low because high MIs sustained for long periods “may result in damaging the lung.”

They also stress that cosmetic filters and modalities such as harmonic imaging, contrast, doppler, and compounding should be avoided, alongside saturation phenomena.
 

What Constitutes Intermediate Disease?

Once the images have been taken, they are scored on a 0-3 scale for each of the 14 areas, with no weighting on any individual area.

A score of 0 is given when the pleural line is continuous and regular, with the presence of A-lines, denoting that the lungs are unaffected.

An area is given a score of 3 when the scan shows dense and largely extended white lung tissue, with or without consolidations, indicating severe disease.

At both ends of this spectrum, there is agreement between the Italian protocol and an algorithm developed by the Butterfly Network.

However, the two differ when it comes to scoring intermediate cases. On the Butterfly algorithm, the suggestion is to look for B-lines, caused by fluid and cellular infiltration into the interstitium, and to weigh that against the need for supplementary oxygen.

The Italian team, in contrast, says a score of 1 is given when the pleural line is indented, with vertical areas of white visible below.

A score of 2 is given when the pleural line is broken, with small to large areas of consolidation and associated areas of white below.

Demi told Medscape Medical News that they did not refer to B-lines in their protocol as their visibility depends entirely on the imaging frequency and the probe used.

“This means that scoring on B-lines, people with different machines would give completely different scores for the same patient.”

He continued: “We prefer to refer to horizontal and vertical artifacts, and provide an analysis of the patterns, which is related to the physics of the interactions between the ultrasound waves and lung surface.”

In response, Mike Stone, MD, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and director of education at Butterfly, said there appears to be wide variation in lung findings that “may or may not correlate with the severity of symptoms.”

He told Medscape Medical News it is “hard to know exactly if someone with pure B-lines will progress to serious illness or if someone with some subpleural consolidations will do well.”
 

A Negative Ultrasound Is the Most Useful

Volpicelli believes that, in any case, any patient with an intermediate pattern will require further diagnosis, such as other imaging modalities and blood exams, and the real role of lung ultrasound is in assessing patients at either end of the spectrum.

“In other words, there are situations where lung ultrasound can be considered definitive,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For instance, if I see a patient with mild signs of the disease, just fever, and I perform lung ultrasound and see nothing, lung ultrasound rules out pneumonia.”

“This patient may have COVID-19 of course, but they do not have pneumonia, and they can be treated at home, awaiting the result of the swab test. And this is useful because you can reduce the burden in the emergency department.”

Volpicelli continued: “On the other hand, there are patients with acute respiratory failure in respiratory distress. If the lung ultrasound is normal, you can rule out COVID-19 and you need to use other diagnostic procedures to understand the problem.”

“This is also very important for us because it’s crucial to be able to remove the patient from the isolation area and perform CT scan, chest radiography, and all the other diagnostic tools that we need.”
 

Are Wireless Machines Needed? Not Necessarily

With regard to the use of wireless technology, the Italian team says that “in the setting of COVID-19, wireless probes and tablets represent the most appropriate ultrasound equipment” because they can “easily be wrapped in single-use plastic covers, reducing the risk of contamination,” and making sterilization easy.

Stone suggests that integrated portable devices, however, are no more likely to cause cross-contamination than separate probes and tablets, as they can fit within a sterile sheath as a single unit.

Volpicelli, for his part, doesn’t like what he sees as undue focus on wireless devices for lung ultrasound in the COVID-19 protocols.

He is concerned that recommending them as the best approach may be sending out the wrong message, which could be very “dangerous” as people may then think they cannot perform this screening with standard ultrasound machines.

For him, the issue of cross contamination with standard lung ultrasound machines is “nonexistent. Cleaning the machine is quite easy and I do it hundreds of times per week.”

He does acknowledge, however, that if the lung ultrasound is performed under certain circumstances, for example when a patient is using a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, “the risk of having the machine contaminated is a little bit higher.”

“In these situations...we have a more intensive cleaning procedure to avoid cross-contamination.”

He stressed: “Not all centers have wireless machines, whereas a normal machine is usually in all hospitals.”

“The advantages of using lung ultrasound [in COVID-19] are too great to be limited by something that is not important in my opinion,” he concluded.

Stone is director of education at the Butterfly Network. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When Judith Salerno, MD, heard that New York was calling for volunteer clinicians to assist with the COVID-19 response, she didn’t hesitate to sign up.

Although Dr. Salerno, 68, has held administrative, research, and policy roles for 25 years, she has kept her medical license active and always found ways to squeeze some clinical work into her busy schedule.

“I have what I could consider ‘rusty’ clinical skills, but pretty good clinical judgment,” said Dr. Salerno, president of the New York Academy of Medicine. “I thought in this situation that I could resurrect and hone those skills, even if it was just taking care of routine patients and working on a team, there was a lot of good I can do.”

Dr. Salerno is among 80,000 health care professionals who have volunteered to work temporarily in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic as of March 31, 2020, according to New York state officials. In mid-March, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a plea for retired physicians and nurses to help the state by signing up for on-call work. Other states have made similar appeals for retired health care professionals to return to medicine in an effort to relieve overwhelmed hospital staffs and aid capacity if health care workers become ill. Such redeployments, however, are raising concerns about exposing senior physicians to a virus that causes more severe illness in individuals aged over 65 years and kills them at a higher rate.

At the same time, a significant portion of the current health care workforce is aged 55 years and older, placing them at higher risk for serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, said Douglas O. Staiger, PhD, a researcher and economics professor at Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Staiger recently coauthored a viewpoint in JAMA called “Older clinicians and the surge in novel coronavirus disease 2019,” which outlines the risks and mortality rates from the novel coronavirus among patients aged 55 years and older.

Protecting staff, screening volunteers

Hematologist-oncologist David H. Henry, MD, said his eight-physician group practice at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has already taken steps to protect him from COVID exposure.

At the request of his younger colleagues, Dr. Henry, 69, said he is no longer seeing patients in the hospital where there is increased exposure risk to the virus. He and the staff also limit their time in the office to 2-3 days a week and practice telemedicine the rest of the week, Dr. Henry said in an interview.

“Whether you’re a person trying to stay at home because you’re quote ‘nonessential,’ or you’re a health care worker and you have to keep seeing patients to some extent, the less we’re face to face with others the better,” said Dr. Henry, who hosts the Blood & Cancer podcast for MDedge News. “There’s an extreme and a middle ground. If they told me just to stay home that wouldn’t help anybody. If they said, ‘business as usual,’ that would be wrong. This is a middle strategy, which is reasonable, rational, and will help dial this dangerous time down as fast as possible.”

On a recent weekend when Dr. Henry would normally have been on call in the hospital, he took phone calls for his colleagues at home while they saw patients in the hospital. This included calls with patients who had questions and consultation calls with other physicians.

“They are helping me and I am helping them,” Dr. Henry said. “Taking those calls makes it easier for my partners to see all those patients. We all want to help and be there, within reason. You want to step up an do your job, but you want to be safe.”

Peter D. Quinn, DMD, MD, chief executive physician of the Penn Medicine Medical Group, said safeguarding the health of its workforce is a top priority as Penn Medicine works to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This includes ensuring that all employees adhere to Centers for Disease Control and Penn Medicine infection prevention guidance as they continue their normal clinical work,” Dr. Quinn said in an interview. “Though age alone is not a criterion to remove frontline staff from direct clinical care during the COVID-19 outbreak, certain conditions such as cardiac or lung disease may be, and clinicians who have concerns are urged to speak with their leadership about options to fill clinical or support roles remotely.”

Meanwhile, for states calling on retired health professionals to assist during the pandemic, thorough screenings that identify high-risk volunteers are essential to protect vulnerable clinicians, said Nathaniel Hibbs, DO, president of the Colorado chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

After Colorado issued a statewide request for retired clinicians to help, Dr. Hibbs became concerned that the state’s website initially included only a basic set of questions for interested volunteers.

“It didn’t have screening questions for prior health problems, comorbidities, or things like high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease – the high-risk factors that we associate with bad outcomes if people get infected with COVID,” Dr. Hibbs said in an interview.

Tapping talent, sharing knowledge

When Barbara L. Schuster, MD, 69, filled out paperwork to join the Georgia Medical Reserve Corps, she answered a range of questions, including inquiries about her age, specialty, licensing, and whether she had any major medical conditions.

“They sent out instructions that said, if you are over the age of 60, we really don’t want you to be doing inpatient or ambulatory with active patients,” said Dr. Schuster, a retired medical school dean in the Athens, Ga., area. “Unless they get to a point where it’s going to be you or nobody, I think that they try to protect us for both our sake and also theirs.”

Dr. Schuster opted for telehealth or administrative duties, but has not yet been called upon to help. The Athens area has not seen high numbers of COVID-19 patients, compared with other parts of the country, and there have not been many volunteer opportunities for physicians thus far, she said. In the meantime, Dr. Schuster has found other ways to give her time, such as answering questions from community members on both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 topics, and offering guidance to medical students.

“I’ve spent an increasing number of hours on Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime meeting with them to talk about various issues,” Dr. Schuster said.

“It’s important for hospitals that are anticipating a surge of critically ill patients to assess their workforce’s capability, including the proportion of older clinicians,” he said. “Is there something organizations can do differently to lessen older physicians’ and nurses’ direct patient contact and reduce their risk of infection?”

Dr. Buerhaus’ JAMA piece offers a range of ideas and assignments for older clinicians during the pandemic, including consulting with younger staff, advising on resources, assisting with clinical and organizational problem solving, aiding clinicians and managers with challenging decisions, consulting with patient families, advising managers and executives, being public spokespersons, and working with public and community health organizations.

“Older clinicians are at increased risk of becoming seriously ill if infected, but yet they’re also the ones who perhaps some of the best minds and experiences to help organizations combat the pandemic,” Dr. Buerhaus said. “These clinicians have great backgrounds and skills and 20, 30, 40 years of experience to draw on, including dealing with prior medical emergencies. I would hope that organizations, if they can, use the time before becoming a hotspot as an opportunity where the younger workforce could be teamed up with some of the older clinicians and learn as much as possible. It’s a great opportunity to share this wealth of knowledge with the workforce that will carry on after the pandemic.”

Since responding to New York’s call for volunteers, Dr. Salerno has been assigned to a palliative care inpatient team at a Manhattan hospital where she is working with large numbers of ICU patients and their families.

“My experience as a geriatrician helps me in talking with anxious and concerned families, especially when they are unable to see or communicate with their critically ill loved ones,” she said.

Before she was assigned the post, Dr. Salerno said she heard concerns from her adult children, who would prefer their mom take on a volunteer telehealth role. At the time, Dr. Salerno said she was not opposed to a telehealth assignment, but stressed to her family that she would go where she was needed.

“I’m healthy enough to run an organization, work long hours, long weeks; I have the stamina. The only thing working against me is age,” she said. “To say I’m not concerned is not honest. Of course I’m concerned. Am I afraid? No. I’m hoping that we can all be kept safe.”
 

agallegos@mdedge.com

When Judith Salerno, MD, heard that New York was calling for volunteer clinicians to assist with the COVID-19 response, she didn’t hesitate to sign up.

Although Dr. Salerno, 68, has held administrative, research, and policy roles for 25 years, she has kept her medical license active and always found ways to squeeze some clinical work into her busy schedule.

“I have what I could consider ‘rusty’ clinical skills, but pretty good clinical judgment,” said Dr. Salerno, president of the New York Academy of Medicine. “I thought in this situation that I could resurrect and hone those skills, even if it was just taking care of routine patients and working on a team, there was a lot of good I can do.”

Dr. Salerno is among 80,000 health care professionals who have volunteered to work temporarily in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic as of March 31, 2020, according to New York state officials. In mid-March, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a plea for retired physicians and nurses to help the state by signing up for on-call work. Other states have made similar appeals for retired health care professionals to return to medicine in an effort to relieve overwhelmed hospital staffs and aid capacity if health care workers become ill. Such redeployments, however, are raising concerns about exposing senior physicians to a virus that causes more severe illness in individuals aged over 65 years and kills them at a higher rate.

At the same time, a significant portion of the current health care workforce is aged 55 years and older, placing them at higher risk for serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, said Douglas O. Staiger, PhD, a researcher and economics professor at Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Staiger recently coauthored a viewpoint in JAMA called “Older clinicians and the surge in novel coronavirus disease 2019,” which outlines the risks and mortality rates from the novel coronavirus among patients aged 55 years and older.

Protecting staff, screening volunteers

Hematologist-oncologist David H. Henry, MD, said his eight-physician group practice at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has already taken steps to protect him from COVID exposure.

At the request of his younger colleagues, Dr. Henry, 69, said he is no longer seeing patients in the hospital where there is increased exposure risk to the virus. He and the staff also limit their time in the office to 2-3 days a week and practice telemedicine the rest of the week, Dr. Henry said in an interview.

“Whether you’re a person trying to stay at home because you’re quote ‘nonessential,’ or you’re a health care worker and you have to keep seeing patients to some extent, the less we’re face to face with others the better,” said Dr. Henry, who hosts the Blood & Cancer podcast for MDedge News. “There’s an extreme and a middle ground. If they told me just to stay home that wouldn’t help anybody. If they said, ‘business as usual,’ that would be wrong. This is a middle strategy, which is reasonable, rational, and will help dial this dangerous time down as fast as possible.”

On a recent weekend when Dr. Henry would normally have been on call in the hospital, he took phone calls for his colleagues at home while they saw patients in the hospital. This included calls with patients who had questions and consultation calls with other physicians.

“They are helping me and I am helping them,” Dr. Henry said. “Taking those calls makes it easier for my partners to see all those patients. We all want to help and be there, within reason. You want to step up an do your job, but you want to be safe.”

Peter D. Quinn, DMD, MD, chief executive physician of the Penn Medicine Medical Group, said safeguarding the health of its workforce is a top priority as Penn Medicine works to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This includes ensuring that all employees adhere to Centers for Disease Control and Penn Medicine infection prevention guidance as they continue their normal clinical work,” Dr. Quinn said in an interview. “Though age alone is not a criterion to remove frontline staff from direct clinical care during the COVID-19 outbreak, certain conditions such as cardiac or lung disease may be, and clinicians who have concerns are urged to speak with their leadership about options to fill clinical or support roles remotely.”

Meanwhile, for states calling on retired health professionals to assist during the pandemic, thorough screenings that identify high-risk volunteers are essential to protect vulnerable clinicians, said Nathaniel Hibbs, DO, president of the Colorado chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

After Colorado issued a statewide request for retired clinicians to help, Dr. Hibbs became concerned that the state’s website initially included only a basic set of questions for interested volunteers.

“It didn’t have screening questions for prior health problems, comorbidities, or things like high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease – the high-risk factors that we associate with bad outcomes if people get infected with COVID,” Dr. Hibbs said in an interview.

Tapping talent, sharing knowledge

When Barbara L. Schuster, MD, 69, filled out paperwork to join the Georgia Medical Reserve Corps, she answered a range of questions, including inquiries about her age, specialty, licensing, and whether she had any major medical conditions.

“They sent out instructions that said, if you are over the age of 60, we really don’t want you to be doing inpatient or ambulatory with active patients,” said Dr. Schuster, a retired medical school dean in the Athens, Ga., area. “Unless they get to a point where it’s going to be you or nobody, I think that they try to protect us for both our sake and also theirs.”

Dr. Schuster opted for telehealth or administrative duties, but has not yet been called upon to help. The Athens area has not seen high numbers of COVID-19 patients, compared with other parts of the country, and there have not been many volunteer opportunities for physicians thus far, she said. In the meantime, Dr. Schuster has found other ways to give her time, such as answering questions from community members on both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 topics, and offering guidance to medical students.

“I’ve spent an increasing number of hours on Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime meeting with them to talk about various issues,” Dr. Schuster said.

“It’s important for hospitals that are anticipating a surge of critically ill patients to assess their workforce’s capability, including the proportion of older clinicians,” he said. “Is there something organizations can do differently to lessen older physicians’ and nurses’ direct patient contact and reduce their risk of infection?”

Dr. Buerhaus’ JAMA piece offers a range of ideas and assignments for older clinicians during the pandemic, including consulting with younger staff, advising on resources, assisting with clinical and organizational problem solving, aiding clinicians and managers with challenging decisions, consulting with patient families, advising managers and executives, being public spokespersons, and working with public and community health organizations.

“Older clinicians are at increased risk of becoming seriously ill if infected, but yet they’re also the ones who perhaps some of the best minds and experiences to help organizations combat the pandemic,” Dr. Buerhaus said. “These clinicians have great backgrounds and skills and 20, 30, 40 years of experience to draw on, including dealing with prior medical emergencies. I would hope that organizations, if they can, use the time before becoming a hotspot as an opportunity where the younger workforce could be teamed up with some of the older clinicians and learn as much as possible. It’s a great opportunity to share this wealth of knowledge with the workforce that will carry on after the pandemic.”

Since responding to New York’s call for volunteers, Dr. Salerno has been assigned to a palliative care inpatient team at a Manhattan hospital where she is working with large numbers of ICU patients and their families.

“My experience as a geriatrician helps me in talking with anxious and concerned families, especially when they are unable to see or communicate with their critically ill loved ones,” she said.

Before she was assigned the post, Dr. Salerno said she heard concerns from her adult children, who would prefer their mom take on a volunteer telehealth role. At the time, Dr. Salerno said she was not opposed to a telehealth assignment, but stressed to her family that she would go where she was needed.

“I’m healthy enough to run an organization, work long hours, long weeks; I have the stamina. The only thing working against me is age,” she said. “To say I’m not concerned is not honest. Of course I’m concerned. Am I afraid? No. I’m hoping that we can all be kept safe.”
 

agallegos@mdedge.com

When Judith Salerno, MD, heard that New York was calling for volunteer clinicians to assist with the COVID-19 response, she didn’t hesitate to sign up.

Although Dr. Salerno, 68, has held administrative, research, and policy roles for 25 years, she has kept her medical license active and always found ways to squeeze some clinical work into her busy schedule.

“I have what I could consider ‘rusty’ clinical skills, but pretty good clinical judgment,” said Dr. Salerno, president of the New York Academy of Medicine. “I thought in this situation that I could resurrect and hone those skills, even if it was just taking care of routine patients and working on a team, there was a lot of good I can do.”

Dr. Salerno is among 80,000 health care professionals who have volunteered to work temporarily in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic as of March 31, 2020, according to New York state officials. In mid-March, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a plea for retired physicians and nurses to help the state by signing up for on-call work. Other states have made similar appeals for retired health care professionals to return to medicine in an effort to relieve overwhelmed hospital staffs and aid capacity if health care workers become ill. Such redeployments, however, are raising concerns about exposing senior physicians to a virus that causes more severe illness in individuals aged over 65 years and kills them at a higher rate.

At the same time, a significant portion of the current health care workforce is aged 55 years and older, placing them at higher risk for serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, said Douglas O. Staiger, PhD, a researcher and economics professor at Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Staiger recently coauthored a viewpoint in JAMA called “Older clinicians and the surge in novel coronavirus disease 2019,” which outlines the risks and mortality rates from the novel coronavirus among patients aged 55 years and older.

Protecting staff, screening volunteers

Hematologist-oncologist David H. Henry, MD, said his eight-physician group practice at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has already taken steps to protect him from COVID exposure.

At the request of his younger colleagues, Dr. Henry, 69, said he is no longer seeing patients in the hospital where there is increased exposure risk to the virus. He and the staff also limit their time in the office to 2-3 days a week and practice telemedicine the rest of the week, Dr. Henry said in an interview.

“Whether you’re a person trying to stay at home because you’re quote ‘nonessential,’ or you’re a health care worker and you have to keep seeing patients to some extent, the less we’re face to face with others the better,” said Dr. Henry, who hosts the Blood & Cancer podcast for MDedge News. “There’s an extreme and a middle ground. If they told me just to stay home that wouldn’t help anybody. If they said, ‘business as usual,’ that would be wrong. This is a middle strategy, which is reasonable, rational, and will help dial this dangerous time down as fast as possible.”

On a recent weekend when Dr. Henry would normally have been on call in the hospital, he took phone calls for his colleagues at home while they saw patients in the hospital. This included calls with patients who had questions and consultation calls with other physicians.

“They are helping me and I am helping them,” Dr. Henry said. “Taking those calls makes it easier for my partners to see all those patients. We all want to help and be there, within reason. You want to step up an do your job, but you want to be safe.”

Peter D. Quinn, DMD, MD, chief executive physician of the Penn Medicine Medical Group, said safeguarding the health of its workforce is a top priority as Penn Medicine works to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This includes ensuring that all employees adhere to Centers for Disease Control and Penn Medicine infection prevention guidance as they continue their normal clinical work,” Dr. Quinn said in an interview. “Though age alone is not a criterion to remove frontline staff from direct clinical care during the COVID-19 outbreak, certain conditions such as cardiac or lung disease may be, and clinicians who have concerns are urged to speak with their leadership about options to fill clinical or support roles remotely.”

Meanwhile, for states calling on retired health professionals to assist during the pandemic, thorough screenings that identify high-risk volunteers are essential to protect vulnerable clinicians, said Nathaniel Hibbs, DO, president of the Colorado chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

After Colorado issued a statewide request for retired clinicians to help, Dr. Hibbs became concerned that the state’s website initially included only a basic set of questions for interested volunteers.

“It didn’t have screening questions for prior health problems, comorbidities, or things like high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease – the high-risk factors that we associate with bad outcomes if people get infected with COVID,” Dr. Hibbs said in an interview.

Tapping talent, sharing knowledge

When Barbara L. Schuster, MD, 69, filled out paperwork to join the Georgia Medical Reserve Corps, she answered a range of questions, including inquiries about her age, specialty, licensing, and whether she had any major medical conditions.

“They sent out instructions that said, if you are over the age of 60, we really don’t want you to be doing inpatient or ambulatory with active patients,” said Dr. Schuster, a retired medical school dean in the Athens, Ga., area. “Unless they get to a point where it’s going to be you or nobody, I think that they try to protect us for both our sake and also theirs.”

Dr. Schuster opted for telehealth or administrative duties, but has not yet been called upon to help. The Athens area has not seen high numbers of COVID-19 patients, compared with other parts of the country, and there have not been many volunteer opportunities for physicians thus far, she said. In the meantime, Dr. Schuster has found other ways to give her time, such as answering questions from community members on both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 topics, and offering guidance to medical students.

“I’ve spent an increasing number of hours on Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime meeting with them to talk about various issues,” Dr. Schuster said.

“It’s important for hospitals that are anticipating a surge of critically ill patients to assess their workforce’s capability, including the proportion of older clinicians,” he said. “Is there something organizations can do differently to lessen older physicians’ and nurses’ direct patient contact and reduce their risk of infection?”

Dr. Buerhaus’ JAMA piece offers a range of ideas and assignments for older clinicians during the pandemic, including consulting with younger staff, advising on resources, assisting with clinical and organizational problem solving, aiding clinicians and managers with challenging decisions, consulting with patient families, advising managers and executives, being public spokespersons, and working with public and community health organizations.

“Older clinicians are at increased risk of becoming seriously ill if infected, but yet they’re also the ones who perhaps some of the best minds and experiences to help organizations combat the pandemic,” Dr. Buerhaus said. “These clinicians have great backgrounds and skills and 20, 30, 40 years of experience to draw on, including dealing with prior medical emergencies. I would hope that organizations, if they can, use the time before becoming a hotspot as an opportunity where the younger workforce could be teamed up with some of the older clinicians and learn as much as possible. It’s a great opportunity to share this wealth of knowledge with the workforce that will carry on after the pandemic.”

Since responding to New York’s call for volunteers, Dr. Salerno has been assigned to a palliative care inpatient team at a Manhattan hospital where she is working with large numbers of ICU patients and their families.

“My experience as a geriatrician helps me in talking with anxious and concerned families, especially when they are unable to see or communicate with their critically ill loved ones,” she said.

Before she was assigned the post, Dr. Salerno said she heard concerns from her adult children, who would prefer their mom take on a volunteer telehealth role. At the time, Dr. Salerno said she was not opposed to a telehealth assignment, but stressed to her family that she would go where she was needed.

“I’m healthy enough to run an organization, work long hours, long weeks; I have the stamina. The only thing working against me is age,” she said. “To say I’m not concerned is not honest. Of course I’m concerned. Am I afraid? No. I’m hoping that we can all be kept safe.”
 

agallegos@mdedge.com

Background

As of April 2020, the United States is faced with the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Experts predict up to 60% of the population will become infected with a fatality rate of 1% and a hospitalization rate of approximately 20%. Efforts to suppress viral spread have been unsuccessful as cases are reported in all 50 states, and fatalities are rising. Currently many American hospitals are ill-prepared for a significant increase in their census of critically ill and contagious patients, i.e., hospitals lack adequate surge capacity to safely handle a nationwide outbreak of COVID-19. As seen in other nations such as Italy, China, and Iran, this leads to rationing of life-saving health care and potentially preventable morbidity and mortality.

Introduction

Hospitals will be unable to provide the current standard of care to patients as the rate of infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) escalates. As of April 9, the World Health Organization has confirmed 1,539,118 cases and 89,998 deaths globally; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 435,941 cases and 14,865 deaths in the United States.^1,2 Experts predict up to 60% of the population will eventually become infected with a fatality rate of about 1% and a hospitalization rate of approximately 20%.^3,4

In the United States, with a population of 300 million people, this represents up to 180 million infected, 36 million requiring hospitalization, 11 million requiring intensive care, and 2 million fatalities over the duration of the pandemic. On March 13, President Donald Trump declared a state of national emergency, authorizing $50 billion dollars in emergency health care spending as well as asking every hospital in the country to immediately activate its emergency response plan. The use of isolation and quarantine may space out casualties over time, however high rates and volumes of hospitalizations are still expected.^4,5

As the influx of patients afflicted with COVID-19 grows, needs will outstrip hospital resources forcing clinicians to ration beds and supplies. In Italy, China, and Iran, physicians are already faced with these difficult decisions. Antonio Pesenti, head of the Italian Lombardy regional crisis response unit, characterized the change in health care delivery: “We’re now being forced to set up intensive care treatment in corridors, in operating theaters, in recovery rooms. We’ve emptied entire hospital sections to make space for seriously sick people.”⁶
 

Surge capacity

Surge capacity is a hospital’s ability to adequately care for a significant influx of patients.⁷ Since 2011, the American College of Emergency Physicians has published guidelines calling for hospitals to have a surge capacity accounting for infectious disease outbreaks, and demands on supplies, personnel, and physical space.⁷ Even prior to the development of COVID-19, many hospitals faced emergency department crowding and strains on hospital capacity.⁸ The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates hospital beds per 1,000 inhabitants at 2.77 for the USA, 3.18 for Italy, 4.34 for China, and 13.05 for Japan.⁹ Before COVID-19 many American hospitals had an insufficient number of beds. Now, in the initial phase of the pandemic, it is even more important to optimize surge capacity across the American health care system.

Requirements for COVID-19 preparation

To prepare for the increased number of seriously and critically ill patients, individual hospitals and regions must perform a needs assessment. The fundamental disease process of COVID-19 is a contagious viral pneumonia; treatment hinges on four major categories of intervention: spatial isolation (including physical space, beds, partitions, droplet precautions, food, water, and sanitation), oxygenation (including wall and portable oxygen, nasal canulae, and masks), mechanical ventilation (including ventilator machines, tubing, anesthetics, and reliable electrical power) and personnel (including physicians, nurses, technicians, and adequate personal protective equipment).¹⁰ In special circumstances and where available, extra corporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered.¹⁰ The necessary interventions are summarized in Table 1.

Emergency, critical care, nursing, and medical leadership should consider what sort of space, personnel, and supplies will be needed to care for a large volume of patients with contagious viral pneumonia at the same time as other hospital patients. Attention should also be given to potential need for morgue expansion. Hospitals must be proactive in procuring supplies and preparing for demands on beds and physical space. Specifically, logistics coordinators should start stockpiling ventilators, oxygen, respiratory equipment, and personal protective equipment. Reallocating supplies from other regions of the hospital such as operating rooms and ambulatory surgery centers may be considered. These resources, particularly ventilators and ventilator supplies, are already in disturbingly limited supply, and they are likely to be single most important limiting factor for survival rates. To prevent regional shortages, stockpiling efforts should ideally be aided by state and federal governments. The production and acquisition of ventilators should be immediately and significantly increased.

Hospitals must additionally prepare for demands for physical space and beds. Techniques to maximize space and bed availability (see Table 2) include discharging patients who do not require hospitalization, and canceling elective procedures and admissions. Additional methods would be to utilize unconventional preexisting spaces such as hallways, operating rooms, recovery rooms, hallways, closed hospital wards, basements, lobbies, cafeterias, and parking lots. Administrators should also consider establishing field hospitals or field wards, such as tents in open spaces and nearby roads. Medical care performed in unconventional environments will need to account for electricity, temperature control, oxygen delivery, and sanitation.

Conclusion

To minimize unnecessary loss of life and suffering, hospitals must expand their surge capacities in preparation for the predictable rise in demand for health care resources related to COVID-19. Numerous hospitals, particularly those that serve low-income and underserved communities, operate with a narrow financial margin.¹¹ Independently preparing for the surge capacity needed to face COVID-19 may be infeasible for several hospitals. As a result, many health care systems will rely on government aid during this period for financial and material support. To maximize preparedness and response, hospitals should ask for and receive aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), American Red Cross, state governments, and the military; these resources should be mobilized now.

Dr. Blumenberg, Dr. Noble, and Dr. Hendrickson are based in the department of emergency medicine & toxicology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

References

1. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report – 60. 2020 Mar 19.

2. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Cases in the U.S. CDC. 2020 Apr 8.

3. Li Q et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316.

4. Anderson RM et al. How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? Lancet. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5.

5. Fraser C et al. Factors that make an infectious disease outbreak controllable. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(16):6146-51. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0307506101.

6. Mackenzie J and Balmer C. Italy locks down millions as its coronavirus deaths jump. Reuters. 2020 Mar 9.

7. Health care system surge capacity recognition, preparedness, and response. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;59(3):240-1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.11.030.

8. Pitts SR et al. A cross-sectional study of emergency department boarding practices in the United States. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(5):497-503. doi: 10.1111/acem.12375.

9. Health at a Glance 2019. OECD; 2019. doi: 10.1787/4dd50c09-en.

10. Murthy S et al. Care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3633.

11. Ly DP et al. The association between hospital margins, quality of care, and closure or other change in operating status. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(11):1291-6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1815-5.

Background

As of April 2020, the United States is faced with the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Experts predict up to 60% of the population will become infected with a fatality rate of 1% and a hospitalization rate of approximately 20%. Efforts to suppress viral spread have been unsuccessful as cases are reported in all 50 states, and fatalities are rising. Currently many American hospitals are ill-prepared for a significant increase in their census of critically ill and contagious patients, i.e., hospitals lack adequate surge capacity to safely handle a nationwide outbreak of COVID-19. As seen in other nations such as Italy, China, and Iran, this leads to rationing of life-saving health care and potentially preventable morbidity and mortality.

Introduction

Hospitals will be unable to provide the current standard of care to patients as the rate of infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) escalates. As of April 9, the World Health Organization has confirmed 1,539,118 cases and 89,998 deaths globally; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 435,941 cases and 14,865 deaths in the United States.^1,2 Experts predict up to 60% of the population will eventually become infected with a fatality rate of about 1% and a hospitalization rate of approximately 20%.^3,4

In the United States, with a population of 300 million people, this represents up to 180 million infected, 36 million requiring hospitalization, 11 million requiring intensive care, and 2 million fatalities over the duration of the pandemic. On March 13, President Donald Trump declared a state of national emergency, authorizing $50 billion dollars in emergency health care spending as well as asking every hospital in the country to immediately activate its emergency response plan. The use of isolation and quarantine may space out casualties over time, however high rates and volumes of hospitalizations are still expected.^4,5

As the influx of patients afflicted with COVID-19 grows, needs will outstrip hospital resources forcing clinicians to ration beds and supplies. In Italy, China, and Iran, physicians are already faced with these difficult decisions. Antonio Pesenti, head of the Italian Lombardy regional crisis response unit, characterized the change in health care delivery: “We’re now being forced to set up intensive care treatment in corridors, in operating theaters, in recovery rooms. We’ve emptied entire hospital sections to make space for seriously sick people.”⁶
 

Surge capacity

Surge capacity is a hospital’s ability to adequately care for a significant influx of patients.⁷ Since 2011, the American College of Emergency Physicians has published guidelines calling for hospitals to have a surge capacity accounting for infectious disease outbreaks, and demands on supplies, personnel, and physical space.⁷ Even prior to the development of COVID-19, many hospitals faced emergency department crowding and strains on hospital capacity.⁸ The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates hospital beds per 1,000 inhabitants at 2.77 for the USA, 3.18 for Italy, 4.34 for China, and 13.05 for Japan.⁹ Before COVID-19 many American hospitals had an insufficient number of beds. Now, in the initial phase of the pandemic, it is even more important to optimize surge capacity across the American health care system.

Requirements for COVID-19 preparation

To prepare for the increased number of seriously and critically ill patients, individual hospitals and regions must perform a needs assessment. The fundamental disease process of COVID-19 is a contagious viral pneumonia; treatment hinges on four major categories of intervention: spatial isolation (including physical space, beds, partitions, droplet precautions, food, water, and sanitation), oxygenation (including wall and portable oxygen, nasal canulae, and masks), mechanical ventilation (including ventilator machines, tubing, anesthetics, and reliable electrical power) and personnel (including physicians, nurses, technicians, and adequate personal protective equipment).¹⁰ In special circumstances and where available, extra corporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered.¹⁰ The necessary interventions are summarized in Table 1.

Emergency, critical care, nursing, and medical leadership should consider what sort of space, personnel, and supplies will be needed to care for a large volume of patients with contagious viral pneumonia at the same time as other hospital patients. Attention should also be given to potential need for morgue expansion. Hospitals must be proactive in procuring supplies and preparing for demands on beds and physical space. Specifically, logistics coordinators should start stockpiling ventilators, oxygen, respiratory equipment, and personal protective equipment. Reallocating supplies from other regions of the hospital such as operating rooms and ambulatory surgery centers may be considered. These resources, particularly ventilators and ventilator supplies, are already in disturbingly limited supply, and they are likely to be single most important limiting factor for survival rates. To prevent regional shortages, stockpiling efforts should ideally be aided by state and federal governments. The production and acquisition of ventilators should be immediately and significantly increased.

Hospitals must additionally prepare for demands for physical space and beds. Techniques to maximize space and bed availability (see Table 2) include discharging patients who do not require hospitalization, and canceling elective procedures and admissions. Additional methods would be to utilize unconventional preexisting spaces such as hallways, operating rooms, recovery rooms, hallways, closed hospital wards, basements, lobbies, cafeterias, and parking lots. Administrators should also consider establishing field hospitals or field wards, such as tents in open spaces and nearby roads. Medical care performed in unconventional environments will need to account for electricity, temperature control, oxygen delivery, and sanitation.

Conclusion

To minimize unnecessary loss of life and suffering, hospitals must expand their surge capacities in preparation for the predictable rise in demand for health care resources related to COVID-19. Numerous hospitals, particularly those that serve low-income and underserved communities, operate with a narrow financial margin.¹¹ Independently preparing for the surge capacity needed to face COVID-19 may be infeasible for several hospitals. As a result, many health care systems will rely on government aid during this period for financial and material support. To maximize preparedness and response, hospitals should ask for and receive aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), American Red Cross, state governments, and the military; these resources should be mobilized now.

Dr. Blumenberg, Dr. Noble, and Dr. Hendrickson are based in the department of emergency medicine & toxicology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

References

1. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report – 60. 2020 Mar 19.

2. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Cases in the U.S. CDC. 2020 Apr 8.

3. Li Q et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316.

4. Anderson RM et al. How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? Lancet. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5.

5. Fraser C et al. Factors that make an infectious disease outbreak controllable. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(16):6146-51. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0307506101.

6. Mackenzie J and Balmer C. Italy locks down millions as its coronavirus deaths jump. Reuters. 2020 Mar 9.

7. Health care system surge capacity recognition, preparedness, and response. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;59(3):240-1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.11.030.

8. Pitts SR et al. A cross-sectional study of emergency department boarding practices in the United States. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(5):497-503. doi: 10.1111/acem.12375.

9. Health at a Glance 2019. OECD; 2019. doi: 10.1787/4dd50c09-en.

10. Murthy S et al. Care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3633.

11. Ly DP et al. The association between hospital margins, quality of care, and closure or other change in operating status. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(11):1291-6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1815-5.

Background

As of April 2020, the United States is faced with the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Experts predict up to 60% of the population will become infected with a fatality rate of 1% and a hospitalization rate of approximately 20%. Efforts to suppress viral spread have been unsuccessful as cases are reported in all 50 states, and fatalities are rising. Currently many American hospitals are ill-prepared for a significant increase in their census of critically ill and contagious patients, i.e., hospitals lack adequate surge capacity to safely handle a nationwide outbreak of COVID-19. As seen in other nations such as Italy, China, and Iran, this leads to rationing of life-saving health care and potentially preventable morbidity and mortality.

Introduction

Hospitals will be unable to provide the current standard of care to patients as the rate of infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) escalates. As of April 9, the World Health Organization has confirmed 1,539,118 cases and 89,998 deaths globally; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 435,941 cases and 14,865 deaths in the United States.^1,2 Experts predict up to 60% of the population will eventually become infected with a fatality rate of about 1% and a hospitalization rate of approximately 20%.^3,4

In the United States, with a population of 300 million people, this represents up to 180 million infected, 36 million requiring hospitalization, 11 million requiring intensive care, and 2 million fatalities over the duration of the pandemic. On March 13, President Donald Trump declared a state of national emergency, authorizing $50 billion dollars in emergency health care spending as well as asking every hospital in the country to immediately activate its emergency response plan. The use of isolation and quarantine may space out casualties over time, however high rates and volumes of hospitalizations are still expected.^4,5

As the influx of patients afflicted with COVID-19 grows, needs will outstrip hospital resources forcing clinicians to ration beds and supplies. In Italy, China, and Iran, physicians are already faced with these difficult decisions. Antonio Pesenti, head of the Italian Lombardy regional crisis response unit, characterized the change in health care delivery: “We’re now being forced to set up intensive care treatment in corridors, in operating theaters, in recovery rooms. We’ve emptied entire hospital sections to make space for seriously sick people.”⁶
 

Surge capacity

Surge capacity is a hospital’s ability to adequately care for a significant influx of patients.⁷ Since 2011, the American College of Emergency Physicians has published guidelines calling for hospitals to have a surge capacity accounting for infectious disease outbreaks, and demands on supplies, personnel, and physical space.⁷ Even prior to the development of COVID-19, many hospitals faced emergency department crowding and strains on hospital capacity.⁸ The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates hospital beds per 1,000 inhabitants at 2.77 for the USA, 3.18 for Italy, 4.34 for China, and 13.05 for Japan.⁹ Before COVID-19 many American hospitals had an insufficient number of beds. Now, in the initial phase of the pandemic, it is even more important to optimize surge capacity across the American health care system.

Requirements for COVID-19 preparation

To prepare for the increased number of seriously and critically ill patients, individual hospitals and regions must perform a needs assessment. The fundamental disease process of COVID-19 is a contagious viral pneumonia; treatment hinges on four major categories of intervention: spatial isolation (including physical space, beds, partitions, droplet precautions, food, water, and sanitation), oxygenation (including wall and portable oxygen, nasal canulae, and masks), mechanical ventilation (including ventilator machines, tubing, anesthetics, and reliable electrical power) and personnel (including physicians, nurses, technicians, and adequate personal protective equipment).¹⁰ In special circumstances and where available, extra corporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered.¹⁰ The necessary interventions are summarized in Table 1.

Emergency, critical care, nursing, and medical leadership should consider what sort of space, personnel, and supplies will be needed to care for a large volume of patients with contagious viral pneumonia at the same time as other hospital patients. Attention should also be given to potential need for morgue expansion. Hospitals must be proactive in procuring supplies and preparing for demands on beds and physical space. Specifically, logistics coordinators should start stockpiling ventilators, oxygen, respiratory equipment, and personal protective equipment. Reallocating supplies from other regions of the hospital such as operating rooms and ambulatory surgery centers may be considered. These resources, particularly ventilators and ventilator supplies, are already in disturbingly limited supply, and they are likely to be single most important limiting factor for survival rates. To prevent regional shortages, stockpiling efforts should ideally be aided by state and federal governments. The production and acquisition of ventilators should be immediately and significantly increased.

Hospitals must additionally prepare for demands for physical space and beds. Techniques to maximize space and bed availability (see Table 2) include discharging patients who do not require hospitalization, and canceling elective procedures and admissions. Additional methods would be to utilize unconventional preexisting spaces such as hallways, operating rooms, recovery rooms, hallways, closed hospital wards, basements, lobbies, cafeterias, and parking lots. Administrators should also consider establishing field hospitals or field wards, such as tents in open spaces and nearby roads. Medical care performed in unconventional environments will need to account for electricity, temperature control, oxygen delivery, and sanitation.

Conclusion

To minimize unnecessary loss of life and suffering, hospitals must expand their surge capacities in preparation for the predictable rise in demand for health care resources related to COVID-19. Numerous hospitals, particularly those that serve low-income and underserved communities, operate with a narrow financial margin.¹¹ Independently preparing for the surge capacity needed to face COVID-19 may be infeasible for several hospitals. As a result, many health care systems will rely on government aid during this period for financial and material support. To maximize preparedness and response, hospitals should ask for and receive aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), American Red Cross, state governments, and the military; these resources should be mobilized now.

Dr. Blumenberg, Dr. Noble, and Dr. Hendrickson are based in the department of emergency medicine & toxicology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

References

1. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report – 60. 2020 Mar 19.

2. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Cases in the U.S. CDC. 2020 Apr 8.

3. Li Q et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316.

4. Anderson RM et al. How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? Lancet. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5.

5. Fraser C et al. Factors that make an infectious disease outbreak controllable. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(16):6146-51. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0307506101.

6. Mackenzie J and Balmer C. Italy locks down millions as its coronavirus deaths jump. Reuters. 2020 Mar 9.

7. Health care system surge capacity recognition, preparedness, and response. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;59(3):240-1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.11.030.

8. Pitts SR et al. A cross-sectional study of emergency department boarding practices in the United States. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(5):497-503. doi: 10.1111/acem.12375.

9. Health at a Glance 2019. OECD; 2019. doi: 10.1787/4dd50c09-en.

10. Murthy S et al. Care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3633.

11. Ly DP et al. The association between hospital margins, quality of care, and closure or other change in operating status. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(11):1291-6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1815-5.

A woman presented to the emergency department with high liver enzyme levels and dark urine. She developed fever on day 2 of care, and then tested positive for the new coronavirus, researchers at Northwell Health, in Hempstead, New York, report.

The authors say the case, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, is the first documented instance of a patient with COVID-19 presenting with acute hepatitis as the primary symptom before developing respiratory symptoms.

Prior data show that the most common early indications of COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms with fever, shortness of breath, sore throat, and cough, and with imaging results consistent with pneumonia. However, liver enzyme abnormalities are not uncommon in the disease course.

“In patients who are now presenting with acute hepatitis, people need to think of COVID,” senior author David Bernstein, MD, chief of the Division of Hepatology at Northwell Health, told Medscape Medical News.

In addition to Bernstein, Praneet Wander, MD, also in Northwell’s hepatology division, and Marcia Epstein, MD, with Northwell’s Department of Infectious Disease, authored the case report.

Bernstein said Northwell currently has the largest number of COVID-19 cases in the nation and that many patients are presenting with abnormal liver test results and COVID-19 symptoms.

He said that anecdotally, colleagues elsewhere in the United States are also reporting the connection.

“It seems to be that the liver enzyme elevations are part and parcel of this disease,” he said.

Case Details

According to the case report, the 59-year-old woman, who lives alone, came to the emergency department with a chief complaint of dark urine. She was given a face mask and was isolated, per protocol.

“She denied cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain,” the authors wrote. She denied having been in contact with someone who was sick.

She had well-controlled HIV, and recent outpatient liver test results were normal. Eighteen hours after she came to the ED, she was admitted, owing to concern regarding rising liver enzyme levels in conjunction with her being HIV positive.

On presentation, her temperature was 98.9° F. There were no skin indications, lungs were normal, and “there was no jaundice, right upper quadrant tenderness, hepatomegaly or splenomegaly.”

Liver enzyme levels were as follows: aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 1230 (IU/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 697 IU/L (normal for both is < 50 IU/L); alkaline phosphatase, 141 IU/L (normal, < 125 IU/L).

The patient tested negative for hepatitis A, B, C, E, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus. A respiratory viral panel and autoimmune markers were normal.
 

Fever Appeared on Day 2

She was admitted, and 18 hours after she came to the ED, she developed a fever of 102.2° F. A chest x-ray showed interstitial opacities in both lungs.

Nasopharyngeal samples were taken, and polymerase chain reaction test results were positive for the novel coronavirus. The patient was placed on 3 L of oxygen.

On post admission day 4, a 5-day course of hydroxychloroquine (200 mg twice a day) was initiated.

The patient was discharged to home on hospital day 8. The serum bilirubin level was 0.6 mg/dL; AST, 114 IU/L; ALT, 227 IU/L; and alkaline phosphatase, 259 IU/L.

According to Bernstein, it’s hard to tell in what order COVID-19 symptoms occur because people are staying home with other complaints. They may only present to the emergency department after they develop more typical COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

In this case, the patient noticed a darkening of her urine, “but if she had come the next day, she would have had fever. I think we just happened to catch it early,” Bernstein said.

He added that he saw no connection between the underlying HIV and her liver abnormalities or COVID-19 diagnosis.

Bernstein notes that most COVID-19 patients are not admitted, and he said he worries that a COVID-19 test might not be on the radar of providers in the outpatient setting when a patient presents with elevated liver enzymes levels.

If elevated liver enzyme levels can predict disease course, the information could alter how and where the disease is treated, Bernstein said.

“This is a first report. We’re really right now in the beginning of learning,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A woman presented to the emergency department with high liver enzyme levels and dark urine. She developed fever on day 2 of care, and then tested positive for the new coronavirus, researchers at Northwell Health, in Hempstead, New York, report.

The authors say the case, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, is the first documented instance of a patient with COVID-19 presenting with acute hepatitis as the primary symptom before developing respiratory symptoms.

Prior data show that the most common early indications of COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms with fever, shortness of breath, sore throat, and cough, and with imaging results consistent with pneumonia. However, liver enzyme abnormalities are not uncommon in the disease course.

“In patients who are now presenting with acute hepatitis, people need to think of COVID,” senior author David Bernstein, MD, chief of the Division of Hepatology at Northwell Health, told Medscape Medical News.

In addition to Bernstein, Praneet Wander, MD, also in Northwell’s hepatology division, and Marcia Epstein, MD, with Northwell’s Department of Infectious Disease, authored the case report.

Bernstein said Northwell currently has the largest number of COVID-19 cases in the nation and that many patients are presenting with abnormal liver test results and COVID-19 symptoms.

He said that anecdotally, colleagues elsewhere in the United States are also reporting the connection.

“It seems to be that the liver enzyme elevations are part and parcel of this disease,” he said.

Case Details

According to the case report, the 59-year-old woman, who lives alone, came to the emergency department with a chief complaint of dark urine. She was given a face mask and was isolated, per protocol.

“She denied cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain,” the authors wrote. She denied having been in contact with someone who was sick.

She had well-controlled HIV, and recent outpatient liver test results were normal. Eighteen hours after she came to the ED, she was admitted, owing to concern regarding rising liver enzyme levels in conjunction with her being HIV positive.

On presentation, her temperature was 98.9° F. There were no skin indications, lungs were normal, and “there was no jaundice, right upper quadrant tenderness, hepatomegaly or splenomegaly.”

Liver enzyme levels were as follows: aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 1230 (IU/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 697 IU/L (normal for both is < 50 IU/L); alkaline phosphatase, 141 IU/L (normal, < 125 IU/L).

The patient tested negative for hepatitis A, B, C, E, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus. A respiratory viral panel and autoimmune markers were normal.
 

Fever Appeared on Day 2

She was admitted, and 18 hours after she came to the ED, she developed a fever of 102.2° F. A chest x-ray showed interstitial opacities in both lungs.

Nasopharyngeal samples were taken, and polymerase chain reaction test results were positive for the novel coronavirus. The patient was placed on 3 L of oxygen.

On post admission day 4, a 5-day course of hydroxychloroquine (200 mg twice a day) was initiated.

The patient was discharged to home on hospital day 8. The serum bilirubin level was 0.6 mg/dL; AST, 114 IU/L; ALT, 227 IU/L; and alkaline phosphatase, 259 IU/L.

According to Bernstein, it’s hard to tell in what order COVID-19 symptoms occur because people are staying home with other complaints. They may only present to the emergency department after they develop more typical COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

In this case, the patient noticed a darkening of her urine, “but if she had come the next day, she would have had fever. I think we just happened to catch it early,” Bernstein said.

He added that he saw no connection between the underlying HIV and her liver abnormalities or COVID-19 diagnosis.

Bernstein notes that most COVID-19 patients are not admitted, and he said he worries that a COVID-19 test might not be on the radar of providers in the outpatient setting when a patient presents with elevated liver enzymes levels.

If elevated liver enzyme levels can predict disease course, the information could alter how and where the disease is treated, Bernstein said.

“This is a first report. We’re really right now in the beginning of learning,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A woman presented to the emergency department with high liver enzyme levels and dark urine. She developed fever on day 2 of care, and then tested positive for the new coronavirus, researchers at Northwell Health, in Hempstead, New York, report.

The authors say the case, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, is the first documented instance of a patient with COVID-19 presenting with acute hepatitis as the primary symptom before developing respiratory symptoms.

Prior data show that the most common early indications of COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms with fever, shortness of breath, sore throat, and cough, and with imaging results consistent with pneumonia. However, liver enzyme abnormalities are not uncommon in the disease course.

“In patients who are now presenting with acute hepatitis, people need to think of COVID,” senior author David Bernstein, MD, chief of the Division of Hepatology at Northwell Health, told Medscape Medical News.

In addition to Bernstein, Praneet Wander, MD, also in Northwell’s hepatology division, and Marcia Epstein, MD, with Northwell’s Department of Infectious Disease, authored the case report.

Bernstein said Northwell currently has the largest number of COVID-19 cases in the nation and that many patients are presenting with abnormal liver test results and COVID-19 symptoms.

He said that anecdotally, colleagues elsewhere in the United States are also reporting the connection.

“It seems to be that the liver enzyme elevations are part and parcel of this disease,” he said.

Case Details

According to the case report, the 59-year-old woman, who lives alone, came to the emergency department with a chief complaint of dark urine. She was given a face mask and was isolated, per protocol.

“She denied cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain,” the authors wrote. She denied having been in contact with someone who was sick.

She had well-controlled HIV, and recent outpatient liver test results were normal. Eighteen hours after she came to the ED, she was admitted, owing to concern regarding rising liver enzyme levels in conjunction with her being HIV positive.

On presentation, her temperature was 98.9° F. There were no skin indications, lungs were normal, and “there was no jaundice, right upper quadrant tenderness, hepatomegaly or splenomegaly.”

Liver enzyme levels were as follows: aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 1230 (IU/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 697 IU/L (normal for both is < 50 IU/L); alkaline phosphatase, 141 IU/L (normal, < 125 IU/L).

The patient tested negative for hepatitis A, B, C, E, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus. A respiratory viral panel and autoimmune markers were normal.
 

Fever Appeared on Day 2

She was admitted, and 18 hours after she came to the ED, she developed a fever of 102.2° F. A chest x-ray showed interstitial opacities in both lungs.

Nasopharyngeal samples were taken, and polymerase chain reaction test results were positive for the novel coronavirus. The patient was placed on 3 L of oxygen.

On post admission day 4, a 5-day course of hydroxychloroquine (200 mg twice a day) was initiated.

The patient was discharged to home on hospital day 8. The serum bilirubin level was 0.6 mg/dL; AST, 114 IU/L; ALT, 227 IU/L; and alkaline phosphatase, 259 IU/L.

According to Bernstein, it’s hard to tell in what order COVID-19 symptoms occur because people are staying home with other complaints. They may only present to the emergency department after they develop more typical COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

In this case, the patient noticed a darkening of her urine, “but if she had come the next day, she would have had fever. I think we just happened to catch it early,” Bernstein said.

He added that he saw no connection between the underlying HIV and her liver abnormalities or COVID-19 diagnosis.

Bernstein notes that most COVID-19 patients are not admitted, and he said he worries that a COVID-19 test might not be on the radar of providers in the outpatient setting when a patient presents with elevated liver enzymes levels.

If elevated liver enzyme levels can predict disease course, the information could alter how and where the disease is treated, Bernstein said.

“This is a first report. We’re really right now in the beginning of learning,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians in China are reporting what they believe is the first case of COVID-19 initially presenting as acute Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

“GBS is an autoimmune neuropathy, which could be triggered by various infections,” said corresponding author Sheng Chen, MD, PhD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China. However, “Our single case report only suggests a possible association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection. It may or may not have a causal relationship,” Dr. Chen noted.

The case study was published online April 1 in Lancet Neurology.
 

GBS presentation

The female patient returned from Wuhan on January 19 but denied having any fever, cough, chest pain, or diarrhea. She presented on January 23 with acute weakness in both legs and severe fatigue that progressed.

At presentation, temperature was normal, oxygen saturation was 99% on room air, and the patient’s respiratory rate was 16 breaths per minute. She was not tested for SARS-CoV-2 at that point.

A neurologic examination revealed symmetric weakness (Medical Research Council grade 4/5) and areflexia in both legs and feet. The patient’s symptoms had progressed 3 days after admission, and testing revealed decreased sensation to light touch and pinprick.

Admission laboratory test results indicated a low lymphocyte count and thrombocytopenia. Results of nerve conduction studies performed on day 5 of hospitalization were consistent with demyelinating neuropathy.

She was diagnosed with GBS and given intravenous immunoglobulin. On day 8, she developed a dry cough and fever, and a chest CT showed ground-glass opacities in both lungs. At this point, she was tested for SARS-CoV-2, and the results were positive.

The patient was immediately transferred to an isolation room and received supportive care and antiviral drugs. Her condition improved gradually, and her lymphocyte and thrombocyte counts were normal on day 20.

At discharge on day 30, she had normal muscle strength in both arms and legs, and tendon reflexes in both legs and feet had returned. Her respiratory symptoms had resolved as well. A second SARS-CoV-2 test was negative.
 

Different pattern from Zika

Two relatives of the patient who had been with her during her hospital stay also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were isolated and treated. All of the hospital staff that cared for the patient, including two neurologists and six nurses, tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Given the temporal association, a SARS-CoV-2 infection could be responsible for the development of GBS in this patient, the investigators noted. They added that the onset of GBS symptoms overlapped with the period of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Hence Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 might follow the pattern of a parainfectious profile, instead of the classic postinfectious profile, as reported in Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with Zika virus,” the researchers wrote.

“More cases with epidemiological data are necessary to support a causal relationship” between SARS-CoV-2 infection and GBS, said Dr. Chen.

“However, we still suggest physicians who encounter an acute GBS patient from a pandemic area protect themselves carefully and test [for the] virus on admission. If the result is positive, the patient needs to be isolated,” Dr. Chen said.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

Physicians in China are reporting what they believe is the first case of COVID-19 initially presenting as acute Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

“GBS is an autoimmune neuropathy, which could be triggered by various infections,” said corresponding author Sheng Chen, MD, PhD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China. However, “Our single case report only suggests a possible association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection. It may or may not have a causal relationship,” Dr. Chen noted.

The case study was published online April 1 in Lancet Neurology.
 

GBS presentation

The female patient returned from Wuhan on January 19 but denied having any fever, cough, chest pain, or diarrhea. She presented on January 23 with acute weakness in both legs and severe fatigue that progressed.

At presentation, temperature was normal, oxygen saturation was 99% on room air, and the patient’s respiratory rate was 16 breaths per minute. She was not tested for SARS-CoV-2 at that point.

A neurologic examination revealed symmetric weakness (Medical Research Council grade 4/5) and areflexia in both legs and feet. The patient’s symptoms had progressed 3 days after admission, and testing revealed decreased sensation to light touch and pinprick.

Admission laboratory test results indicated a low lymphocyte count and thrombocytopenia. Results of nerve conduction studies performed on day 5 of hospitalization were consistent with demyelinating neuropathy.

She was diagnosed with GBS and given intravenous immunoglobulin. On day 8, she developed a dry cough and fever, and a chest CT showed ground-glass opacities in both lungs. At this point, she was tested for SARS-CoV-2, and the results were positive.

The patient was immediately transferred to an isolation room and received supportive care and antiviral drugs. Her condition improved gradually, and her lymphocyte and thrombocyte counts were normal on day 20.

At discharge on day 30, she had normal muscle strength in both arms and legs, and tendon reflexes in both legs and feet had returned. Her respiratory symptoms had resolved as well. A second SARS-CoV-2 test was negative.
 

Different pattern from Zika

Two relatives of the patient who had been with her during her hospital stay also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were isolated and treated. All of the hospital staff that cared for the patient, including two neurologists and six nurses, tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Given the temporal association, a SARS-CoV-2 infection could be responsible for the development of GBS in this patient, the investigators noted. They added that the onset of GBS symptoms overlapped with the period of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Hence Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 might follow the pattern of a parainfectious profile, instead of the classic postinfectious profile, as reported in Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with Zika virus,” the researchers wrote.

“More cases with epidemiological data are necessary to support a causal relationship” between SARS-CoV-2 infection and GBS, said Dr. Chen.

“However, we still suggest physicians who encounter an acute GBS patient from a pandemic area protect themselves carefully and test [for the] virus on admission. If the result is positive, the patient needs to be isolated,” Dr. Chen said.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

Physicians in China are reporting what they believe is the first case of COVID-19 initially presenting as acute Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

“GBS is an autoimmune neuropathy, which could be triggered by various infections,” said corresponding author Sheng Chen, MD, PhD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China. However, “Our single case report only suggests a possible association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection. It may or may not have a causal relationship,” Dr. Chen noted.

The case study was published online April 1 in Lancet Neurology.
 

GBS presentation

The female patient returned from Wuhan on January 19 but denied having any fever, cough, chest pain, or diarrhea. She presented on January 23 with acute weakness in both legs and severe fatigue that progressed.

At presentation, temperature was normal, oxygen saturation was 99% on room air, and the patient’s respiratory rate was 16 breaths per minute. She was not tested for SARS-CoV-2 at that point.

A neurologic examination revealed symmetric weakness (Medical Research Council grade 4/5) and areflexia in both legs and feet. The patient’s symptoms had progressed 3 days after admission, and testing revealed decreased sensation to light touch and pinprick.

Admission laboratory test results indicated a low lymphocyte count and thrombocytopenia. Results of nerve conduction studies performed on day 5 of hospitalization were consistent with demyelinating neuropathy.

She was diagnosed with GBS and given intravenous immunoglobulin. On day 8, she developed a dry cough and fever, and a chest CT showed ground-glass opacities in both lungs. At this point, she was tested for SARS-CoV-2, and the results were positive.

The patient was immediately transferred to an isolation room and received supportive care and antiviral drugs. Her condition improved gradually, and her lymphocyte and thrombocyte counts were normal on day 20.

At discharge on day 30, she had normal muscle strength in both arms and legs, and tendon reflexes in both legs and feet had returned. Her respiratory symptoms had resolved as well. A second SARS-CoV-2 test was negative.
 

Different pattern from Zika

Two relatives of the patient who had been with her during her hospital stay also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were isolated and treated. All of the hospital staff that cared for the patient, including two neurologists and six nurses, tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Given the temporal association, a SARS-CoV-2 infection could be responsible for the development of GBS in this patient, the investigators noted. They added that the onset of GBS symptoms overlapped with the period of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Hence Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 might follow the pattern of a parainfectious profile, instead of the classic postinfectious profile, as reported in Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with Zika virus,” the researchers wrote.

“More cases with epidemiological data are necessary to support a causal relationship” between SARS-CoV-2 infection and GBS, said Dr. Chen.

“However, we still suggest physicians who encounter an acute GBS patient from a pandemic area protect themselves carefully and test [for the] virus on admission. If the result is positive, the patient needs to be isolated,” Dr. Chen said.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

It is often said that a crisis brings out the best and worst in people, and I think we are definitely seeing that when it comes to the responses to reproductive health, family planning, and abortion care during this global pandemic.

Many national and international organizations have published strong statements of support for the importance of continuing reproductive health services. These organizations include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society of Family Planning, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Society of Family Planning, American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the Ethiopian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They state the obvious, which is that abortion is a time-sensitive procedure, and it cannot be delayed until the end of this COVID-19 pandemic.

We do not have complete knowledge of what the novel coronavirus 2019 does to a developing pregnancy, especially early in pregnancy. Many people who are struggling with all the uncertainty of this time – job, health, housing, food, school – may decide it is not the best moment to be adding to their family.

These concerns apply as well to the need to maintain and prioritize contraceptive services. Stay-at-home orders have put people in close quarters for long periods of time, and we are already getting reports of increased sexual intercourse, as well as increased sexual violence, both of which could result in a need for abortion if contraception is not accessible. Additionally, many women are expressing a concern for whether they will still have a job or have a job again when this first wave of the crisis passes, so they are wanting to access contraception now when they can afford to do so.

I was personally very proud of and grateful to Barbara A. Goff, MD, the chair of my department at the University of Washington, Seattle, for stating clearly in the first email she sent to faculty about canceling elective procedures and visits that family planning and abortion is not elective. My heart goes out to my colleagues and the patients who are in states that are using this opportunity to act poorly and use COVID-19 as another excuse to legislate against abortion and contraception. It demonstrates horrifying gender discrimination during a time when we should really be focusing on keeping everyone healthy.

I predict there will be an increase in the numbers of abortions after this crisis ebbs, and an increase in the numbers of term deliveries. The time to influence that is now.

Dr. Prager is professor of obstetrics and gynecology, chief of the family planning division, and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of Washington, Seattle. She also is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at St. Paul’s Hospital and Millennium Medical College in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dr. Prager is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Prager at obnews@mdedge.com.

It is often said that a crisis brings out the best and worst in people, and I think we are definitely seeing that when it comes to the responses to reproductive health, family planning, and abortion care during this global pandemic.

Many national and international organizations have published strong statements of support for the importance of continuing reproductive health services. These organizations include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society of Family Planning, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Society of Family Planning, American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the Ethiopian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They state the obvious, which is that abortion is a time-sensitive procedure, and it cannot be delayed until the end of this COVID-19 pandemic.

We do not have complete knowledge of what the novel coronavirus 2019 does to a developing pregnancy, especially early in pregnancy. Many people who are struggling with all the uncertainty of this time – job, health, housing, food, school – may decide it is not the best moment to be adding to their family.

These concerns apply as well to the need to maintain and prioritize contraceptive services. Stay-at-home orders have put people in close quarters for long periods of time, and we are already getting reports of increased sexual intercourse, as well as increased sexual violence, both of which could result in a need for abortion if contraception is not accessible. Additionally, many women are expressing a concern for whether they will still have a job or have a job again when this first wave of the crisis passes, so they are wanting to access contraception now when they can afford to do so.

I was personally very proud of and grateful to Barbara A. Goff, MD, the chair of my department at the University of Washington, Seattle, for stating clearly in the first email she sent to faculty about canceling elective procedures and visits that family planning and abortion is not elective. My heart goes out to my colleagues and the patients who are in states that are using this opportunity to act poorly and use COVID-19 as another excuse to legislate against abortion and contraception. It demonstrates horrifying gender discrimination during a time when we should really be focusing on keeping everyone healthy.

I predict there will be an increase in the numbers of abortions after this crisis ebbs, and an increase in the numbers of term deliveries. The time to influence that is now.

Dr. Prager is professor of obstetrics and gynecology, chief of the family planning division, and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of Washington, Seattle. She also is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at St. Paul’s Hospital and Millennium Medical College in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dr. Prager is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Prager at obnews@mdedge.com.

It is often said that a crisis brings out the best and worst in people, and I think we are definitely seeing that when it comes to the responses to reproductive health, family planning, and abortion care during this global pandemic.

Many national and international organizations have published strong statements of support for the importance of continuing reproductive health services. These organizations include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society of Family Planning, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Society of Family Planning, American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the Ethiopian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They state the obvious, which is that abortion is a time-sensitive procedure, and it cannot be delayed until the end of this COVID-19 pandemic.

We do not have complete knowledge of what the novel coronavirus 2019 does to a developing pregnancy, especially early in pregnancy. Many people who are struggling with all the uncertainty of this time – job, health, housing, food, school – may decide it is not the best moment to be adding to their family.

These concerns apply as well to the need to maintain and prioritize contraceptive services. Stay-at-home orders have put people in close quarters for long periods of time, and we are already getting reports of increased sexual intercourse, as well as increased sexual violence, both of which could result in a need for abortion if contraception is not accessible. Additionally, many women are expressing a concern for whether they will still have a job or have a job again when this first wave of the crisis passes, so they are wanting to access contraception now when they can afford to do so.

I was personally very proud of and grateful to Barbara A. Goff, MD, the chair of my department at the University of Washington, Seattle, for stating clearly in the first email she sent to faculty about canceling elective procedures and visits that family planning and abortion is not elective. My heart goes out to my colleagues and the patients who are in states that are using this opportunity to act poorly and use COVID-19 as another excuse to legislate against abortion and contraception. It demonstrates horrifying gender discrimination during a time when we should really be focusing on keeping everyone healthy.

I predict there will be an increase in the numbers of abortions after this crisis ebbs, and an increase in the numbers of term deliveries. The time to influence that is now.

Dr. Prager is professor of obstetrics and gynecology, chief of the family planning division, and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of Washington, Seattle. She also is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at St. Paul’s Hospital and Millennium Medical College in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dr. Prager is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Prager at obnews@mdedge.com.