European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus recommendations on patient selection and dose and fractionation for external beam radiotherapy in early breast cancer.

High-quality randomised clinical trials testing moderately fractionated breast radiotherapy have clearly shown that local control and survival is at least as effective as with 2 Gy daily fractions with similar or reduced normal tissue toxicity. Fewer treatment visits are welcomed by patients and their families, and reduced fractions produce substantial savings for health-care systems. Implementation of hypofractionation, however, has moved at a slow pace. The oncology community have now reached an inflection point created by new evidence from the FAST-Forward five-fraction randomised trial and catalysed by the need for the global radiation oncology community to unite during the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly rethink hypofractionation implementation. The aim of this paper is to support equity of access for all patients to receive evidence-based breast external beam radiotherapy and to facilitate the translation of new evidence into routine daily practice. The results from this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus state that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy can be offered to any patient for whole breast, chest wall (with or without reconstruction), and nodal volumes. Ultrafractionation (five fractions) can also be offered for non-nodal breast or chest wall (without reconstruction) radiotherapy either as standard of care or within a randomised trial or prospective cohort. The consensus is timely; not only is it a pragmatic framework for radiation oncologists, but it provides a measured proposal for the path forward to influence policy makers and empower patients to ensure equity of access to evidence-based radiotherapy.

Difficult Airway Management in Adult Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: Statement by the Society of Airway Management.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), often results in severe hypoxemia requiring airway management. Because SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread via respiratory droplets, bag-mask ventilation, intubation, and extubation may place health care workers (HCW) at risk. While existing recommendations address airway management in patients with COVID-19, no guidance exists specifically for difficult airway management. Some strategies normally recommended for difficult airway management may not be ideal in the setting of COVID-19 infection. To address this issue, the Society for Airway Management (SAM) created a task force to review existing literature and current practice guidelines for difficult airway management by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. The SAM task force created recommendations for the management of known or suspected difficult airway in the setting of known or suspected COVID-19 infection. The goal of the task force was to optimize successful airway management while minimizing exposure risk. Each member conducted a literature review on specific clinical practice section utilizing standard search engines (PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar). Existing recommendations and evidence for difficult airway management in the COVID-19 context were developed. Each specific recommendation was discussed among task force members and modified until unanimously approved by all task force members. Elements of Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Reporting Checklist for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines were utilized to develop this statement. Airway management in the COVID-19 patient increases HCW exposure risk. Difficult airway management often takes longer and may involve multiple procedures with aerosolization potential, and strict adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols is mandatory to reduce risk to providers. When a patient's airway risk assessment suggests that awake tracheal intubation is an appropriate choice of technique, and procedures that may cause increased aerosolization of secretions should be avoided. Optimal preoxygenation before induction with a tight seal facemask may be performed to reduce the risk of hypoxemia. Unless the patient is experiencing oxygen desaturation, positive pressure bag-mask ventilation after induction may be avoided to reduce aerosolization. For optimal intubating conditions, patients should be anesthetized with full muscle relaxation. Videolaryngoscopy is recommended as a first-line strategy for airway management. If emergent invasive airway access is indicated, then we recommend a surgical technique such as scalpel-bougie-tube, rather than an aerosolizing generating procedure, such as transtracheal jet ventilation. This statement represents recommendations by the SAM task force for the difficult airway management of adults with COVID-19 with the goal to optimize successful airway management while minimizing the risk of clinician exposure.

Allocating scarce intensive care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: practical challenges to theoretical frameworks.

The COVID-19 pandemic strained health-care systems throughout the world. For some, available medical resources could not meet the increased demand and rationing was ultimately required. Hospitals and governments often sought to establish triage committees to assist with allocation decisions. However, for institutions operating under crisis standards of care (during times when standards of care must be substantially lowered in the setting of crisis), relying on these committees for rationing decisions was impractical-circumstances were changing too rapidly, occurring in too many diverse locations within hospitals, and the available information for decision making was notably scarce. Furthermore, a utilitarian approach to decision making based on an analysis of outcomes is problematic due to uncertainty regarding outcomes of different therapeutic options. We propose that triage committees could be involved in providing policies and guidance for clinicians to help ensure equity in the application of rationing under crisis standards of care. An approach guided by egalitarian principles, integrated with utilitarian principles, can support physicians at the bedside when they must ration scarce resources.

The adjustment of neurosurgical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study at Dr. Sardjito General Hospital as a part of an academic health system.

OBJECTIVE: The recent COVID-19 outbreak has forced notable adjustments to surgical procedure preparation, including neurosurgical services. However, due to the uniqueness of the recent situation, neurosurgical centers, especially those located in low-resource settings, are facing several challenges such as a lack of coordination, poor equipment, and shortage of medical personnel. Therefore, several guidelines from local authorities and international neurosurgical bodies have been published to help clinicians manage their patients. In addition, the academic health system (AHS), which is an integrated system containing a medical institution, universities, and a teaching hospital, may play some role in the management of patients during COVID-19. The objective of this study was to describe how each hospital in the authors' network adjusted their neurosurgical practice and how the AHS of the Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) played its role in the adaptation process during the pandemic. METHODS: The authors gathered both local and national data about the number of COVID-19 infections from the government's database. To assess the contribution of the AHS to the efforts of each hospital to address the pandemic, questionnaires were given to 6 neurosurgeons, 1 resident, and 2 general surgeons about the management of neurosurgical cases during the pandemic in their hospitals. RESULTS: The data illustrate various strategies to manage neurosurgical cases by hospitals within the authors' networks. The hospitals were grouped into three categories based on the transmission risk in each region. Most of these hospitals stated that UGM AHS had a positive impact on the changes in their strategies. In the early phase of the outbreak, some hospitals faced a lack of coordination between hospitals and related stakeholders, inadequate amount of personal protective equipment (PPE), and unclear regulations. As the nation enters a new phase, almost all hospitals had performed routine screening tests, had a sufficient amount of PPE for the medical personnel, and followed both national and international guidelines in caring for their neurosurgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: The management of neurosurgical procedures during the outbreak has been a challenging task and a role of the AHS in improving patient care has been experienced by most hospitals in the authors' network. In the future, the authors expect to develop a better collaboration for the next possible pandemic.

Telehealth for Home Dialysis in COVID-19 and Beyond: A Perspective From the American Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Home Dialysis Subcommittee.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, technological advancements, regulatory waivers, and user acceptance have converged to boost telehealth activities. Due to the state of emergency, regulatory waivers in the United States have made it possible for providers to deliver and bill for services across state lines for new and established patients through Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)- and non-HIPAA-compliant platforms with home as the originating site and without geographic restrictions. Platforms have been developed or purchased to perform videoconferencing, and interdisciplinary dialysis teams have adapted to perform virtual visits. Telehealth experiences and challenges encountered by dialysis providers, clinicians, nurses, and patients have exposed health care disparities in areas such as access to care, bandwidth connectivity, availability of devices to perform telehealth, and socioeconomic and language barriers. Future directions in telehealth use, quality measures, and research in telehealth use need to be explored. Telehealth during the public health emergency has changed the practice of health care, with the post-COVID-19 world unlikely to resemble the prior era. The future impact of telehealth in patient care in the United States remains to be seen, especially in the context of the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative.

InterOrganizational practice committee recommendations/guidance for teleneuropsychology (TeleNP) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: The Inter Organizational Practice Committee (IOPC) convened a workgroup to provide rapid guidance about teleneuropsychology (TeleNP) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.Method: A collaborative panel of experts from major professional organizations developed provisional guidance for neuropsychological practice during the pandemic. The stakeholders included the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Division 40 of the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and the American Psychological Association Services, Inc. The group reviewed literature, collated federal, regional and state regulations and information from insurers, and surveyed practitioners to identify best practices.Results: Literature indicates that TeleNP may offer reliable and valid assessments, but clinicians need to consider limitations, develop new informed consent procedures, report modifications of standard procedures, and state limitations to diagnostic conclusions and recommendations. Specific limitations affect TeleNP assessments of older adults, younger children, individuals with limited access to technology, and individuals with other individual, cultural, and/or linguistic differences. TeleNP may be contraindicated or infeasible given specific patient characteristics, circumstances, and referral questions. Considerations for billing TeleNP services are offered with reservations that clinicians must verify procedures independently. Guidance about technical issues and "tips" for TeleNP procedures are provided.Conclusion: This document provides provisional guidance with links to resources and established guidelines for telepsychology. Specific recommendations extend these practices to TeleNP. These recommendations may be revised as circumstances evolve, with updates posted continuously at OPC.online.

National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force Guidance for Management of Psoriatic Disease During the Pandemic: Version 1.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance about management of psoriatic disease during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: A task force (TF) of 18 physician voting members with expertise in dermatology, rheumatology, epidemiology, infectious diseases, and critical care was convened. The TF was supplemented by nonvoting members, which included fellows and National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) staff. Clinical questions relevant to the psoriatic disease community were informed by questions received by the NPF. A Delphi process was conducted. RESULTS: The TF approved 22 guidance statements. The average of the votes was within the category of agreement for all statements. All guidance statements proposed were recommended, 9 with high consensus and 13 with moderate consensus. LIMITATIONS: The evidence behind many guidance statements is limited in quality. CONCLUSION: These statements provide guidance for the management of patients with psoriatic disease on topics ranging from how the disease and its treatments impact COVID-19 risk and outcome, how medical care can be optimized during the pandemic, what patients should do to lower their risk of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and what they should do if they develop COVID-19. The guidance is intended to be a living document that will be updated by the TF as data emerge.

American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society Task Force Recommendations for Resumption of Motility Laboratory Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society Task Force recommends that gastrointestinal motility procedures should be performed in motility laboratories adhering to the strict recommendations and personal protective equipment (PPE) measures to protect patients, ancillary staff, and motility allied health professionals. When available and within constraints of institutional guidelines, it is preferable for patients scheduled for motility procedures to complete a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test within 48 hours before their procedure, similar to the recommendations before endoscopy made by gastroenterology societies. COVID-19 test results must be documented before performing procedures. If procedures are to be performed without a COVID-19 test, full PPE use is recommended, along with all social distancing and infection control measures. Because patients with suspected motility disorders may require multiple procedures, sequential scheduling of procedures should be considered to minimize need for repeat COVID-19 testing. The strategies for and timing of procedure(s) should be adapted, taking into consideration local institutional standards, with the provision for screening without testing in low prevalence areas. If tested positive for COVID-19, subsequent negative testing may be required before scheduling a motility procedure (timing is variable). Specific recommendations for each motility procedure including triaging, indications, PPE use, and alternatives to motility procedures are detailed in the document. These recommendations may evolve as understanding of virus transmission and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in the community changes over the upcoming months.

Adoption of Multi-society Guidelines Facilitates Value-Based Reduction in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy Volume During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of screening and surveillance colonoscopies appropriate for rescheduling to a future year through strict adoption of US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a single-center observational study of patients scheduled for "open-access colonoscopy"-ordered by a primary care provider without being seen in gastroenterology clinic-over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each chart was reviewed to appropriately assign a surveillance year per USMSTF guidelines including demographics, colonoscopy history and family history. When guidelines recommended a range of colonoscopy intervals, both a "conservative" and "liberal" guideline adherence were assessed. RESULTS: We delayed 769 "open-access" screening or surveillance colonoscopies due to COVID-19. Between 14.8% (conservative) and 20.7% (liberal), colonoscopies were appropriate for rescheduling to a future year. Conversely, 415 (54.0%) patients were overdue for colonoscopy. Family history of CRC was associated with being scheduled too early for both screening (OR 3.9; CI 1.9-8.2) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.6, CI 1.0-6.5). The most common reasons a colonoscopy was inappropriately scheduled this year were failure to use new surveillance colonoscopy intervals (28.9%), incorrectly applied family history guidelines (27.2%) and recommending early surveillance colonoscopy after recent normal colonoscopy (19.3%). CONCLUSION: Up to one-fifth of patients scheduled for "open-access" colonoscopy can be rescheduled into a future year based on USMSTF guidelines. Rigorously applying guidelines could judiciously allocate colonoscopy resources as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Electroencephalography during SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: practical recommendations from the task force of the Italian Society of Neurophysiology (SINC), the Italian League Against Epilepsy (LICE), and the Italian Association of Neurophysiology Technologists (AITN).

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 lockdown, non-urgent medical procedures were suspended. Grade of urgency of electroencephalography (EEG) may vary according to the clinical indication, setting, and status of infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus. "Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology" (SINC), "Italian League Against Epilepsy" (LICE), and the "Italian Association of Neurophysiology Technologists" (AITN) aimed to provide clinical and technical recommendation for EEG indications and recording standards in this pandemic era. METHODS: Presidents of SINC, LICE, and AITN endorsed three members per each society to formulate recommendations: classification of the degree of urgency of EEG clinical indications, management and behavior of physicians and neurophysiology technologists, hygiene and personal protection standards, and use of technical equipment. RESULTS: Scientific societies endorsed a paper conveying the recommendation for EEG execution in accordance with clinical urgency, setting (inpatients/outpatients), status of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection (positive, negative and uncertain), and phase of governmental restrictions (phase 1 and 2). Briefly, in phase 1, EEG was recommended only for those acute/subacute neurological symptoms where EEG is necessary for diagnosis, prognosis, or therapy. Outpatient examinations should be avoided in phase 1, while they should be recommended in urgent cases in phase 2 when they could prevent an emergency room access. Reduction of staff contacts must be encouraged through rescheduling job shifts. The use of disposable electrodes and dedicated EEG devices for COVID-19-positive patients are recommended. CONCLUSIONS: During the different phases of COVID-19 pandemic, the EEG should be reserved for patients really benefiting from its execution in terms of diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and avoidance of emergency room access.

Navigating immunosuppression in a pandemic: A guide for the dermatologist from the COVID Task Force of the Medical Dermatology Society and Society of Dermatology Hospitalists.

Dermatologists treating immune-mediated skin disease must now contend with the uncertainties associated with immunosuppressive use in the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Although the risk of infection with many commonly used immunosuppressive agents remains low, direct data evaluating the safety of such agents in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are scarce. This article reviews and offers guidance based on currently available safety data and the most recent COVID-19 outcome data in patients with immune-mediated dermatologic disease. The interdisciplinary panel of experts emphasizes a stepwise, shared decision-making approach in the management of immunosuppressive therapy. The goal of this article is to help providers minimize the risk of disease flares while simultaneously minimizing the risk of iatrogenic harm during an evolving pandemic.