Search

Introduction Buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) has several benefits including better long-term treatment adherence (1) and is a safer option for many patients due to buprenorphine’s limited potential to cause respiratory depression (4). In comparison to standard buprenorphine induction, induction via micro-dosing does not require a period of withdrawal and dramatically shortens the time required to complete induction. Prior micro-dosing protocols using sublingual (SL) (7-10) and transdermal forms (11) have been reported. We present a case of buprenorphine induction using a novel inpatient intravenous micro-dosing 4-day protocol in a patient on methadone. Case Presentation A 62-year-old man with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on chronic methadone 80mg daily for OUD presented with respiratory failure and was diagnosed with opioid overdose. He was transitioned from a naloxone infusion to intravenous micro-doses of buprenorphine and low dose methadone without experiencing significant withdrawal, and he was discharged on buprenorphine/naloxone SL. Discussion This case demonstrates a successful and well tolerated buprenorphine induction without interruption of methadone treatment or precipitation of significant opioid withdrawal. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report describing micro-induction with intravenous buprenorphine.

Objectives To develop a consensus statement on the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the assessment of symptomatic general medical inpatients with known or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Our LUS expert panel consisted of 14 multidisciplinary international experts. Experts voted in 3 rounds on the strength of 26 recommendations as "strong," "weak," or "do not recommend." For recommendations that reached consensus for do not recommend, a fourth round was conducted to determine the strength of those recommendations, with 2 additional recommendations considered. Results Of the 26 recommendations, experts reached consensus on 6 in the first round, 13 in the second, and 7 in the third. Four recommendations were removed because of redundancy. In the fourth round, experts considered 4 recommendations that reached consensus for do not recommend and 2 additional scenarios; consensus was reached for 4 of these. Our final recommendations consist of 24 consensus statements; for 2 of these, the strength of the recommendations did not reach consensus. Conclusions In symptomatic medical inpatients with known or suspected COVID-19, we recommend the use of LUS to: (1) support the diagnosis of pneumonitis but not diagnose COVID-19, (2) rule out concerning ultrasound features, (3) monitor patients with a change in the clinical status, and (4) avoid unnecessary additional imaging for patients whose pretest probability of an alternative or superimposed diagnosis is low. We do not recommend the use of LUS to guide admission and discharge decisions. We do not recommend routine serial LUS in patients without a change in their clinical condition.

Background Lack of training is currently the most common barrier to implementation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use in clinical practice, and in-person POCUS continuing medical education (CME) courses have been paramount in improving this training gap. Due to travel restrictions and physical distancing requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, most in-person POCUS training courses were cancelled. Though tele-ultrasound technology has existed for several years, use of tele-ultrasound technology to deliver hands-on training during a POCUS CME course has not been previously described. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing educational outcomes, course evaluations, and learner and faculty feedback from in-person versus tele-ultrasound POCUS courses. The same POCUS educational curriculum was delivered to learners by the two course formats. Data from the most recent pre-pandemic in-person course were compared to tele-ultrasound courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Pre- and post-course knowledge test scores of learners from the in-person (n = 88) and tele-ultrasound course (n = 52) were compared. Though mean pre-course knowledge test scores were higher among learners of the tele-ultrasound versus in-person course (78% vs. 71%; p = 0.001), there was no significant difference in the post-course test scores between learners of the two course formats (89% vs. 87%; p = 0.069). Both learners and faculty rated the tele-ultrasound course highly (4.6–5.0 on a 5-point scale) for effectiveness of virtual lectures, tele-ultrasound hands-on scanning sessions, and course administration. Faculty generally expressed less satisfaction with their ability to engage with learners, troubleshoot image acquisition, and provide feedback during the tele-ultrasound course but felt learners completed the tele-ultrasound course with a better basic POCUS skillset. Conclusions Compared to a traditional in-person course, tele-ultrasound POCUS CME courses appeared to be as effective for improving POCUS knowledge post-course and fulfilling learning objectives. Our findings can serve as a roadmap for educators seeking guidance on development of a tele-ultrasound POCUS training course whose demand will likely persist beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Neurologic complications of COVID-19 are not well described. We report 2 patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after presenting with diplopia and ophthalmoparesis.

Many hospitalists incorporate point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) into their daily practice to answer specific diagnostic questions or to guide performance of invasive bedside procedures. However, standards for hospitalists in POCUS training and assessment are not yet established. Most internal medicine residency training programs, the major pipeline for incoming hospitalists, have only recently begun to incorporate POCUS in their curricula. The purpose of this document is to inform a broad audience on what POCUS is and how hospitalists are using it. This document is intended to provide guidance for the hospitalists who use POCUS and administrators who oversee its use. We discuss POCUS 1) applications, 2) training, 3) assessments, and 4) program management. Practicing hospitalists must continue to collaborate with their local credentialing bodies to outline requirements for POCUS use. Hospitalists should be integrally involved in decision-making processes surrounding POCUS program management.

We appreciate Dr. Machado's insightful comments regarding our case series1 describing cranial neuropathies in 2 patients with COVID-19. The triad of progressive ophthalmoplegia, ataxia, and areflexia in our first case suggested Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS), despite the negative ganglioside panel, although we were surprised by the short interval of 4 days between respiratory and neurologic symptoms. However, in 2 cases of COVID-19-associated MFS, latencies were similar (5 and 3 days),2 suggesting that the postinfectious interval is shorter for COVID-19 than for other infections. In fact, in a recent case of Guillain-Barre syndrome associated with COVID-19, neurologic symptoms preceded the respiratory symptoms by 1 week.3 The authors noted that lymphopenia was present on admission, indicating the presence of COVID-19 long before systemic symptoms began. This is in line with recent observations that 10/13 nursing home residents only developed symptoms 7 days after testing positive.4 Our second case may reflect direct viral invasion because there were no signs of MFS. Transfer of the virus through the olfactory bulbs is supported by recent evidence of olfactory bulb edema5 and hyperintensity of the adjacent gyrus rectus6 in patients with COVID-19-associated anosmia, although our patient never developed anosmia. The rapid recovery of anosmia observed in most COVID-19 cases argues for olfactory epithelial dysfunction as opposed to olfactory nerve damage, and we agree with Dr. Machado that hematogenous spread of virus may also play a role in CNS disease.