User login
Stroke may be the first symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients
new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.
Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.
“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.
The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
Anecdotal reports
“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”
The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.
The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.
In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.
“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”
Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”
Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
Mortality ‘remarkably high’
The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.
Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.
Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.
“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
High-risk phenotype
Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.
Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).
Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).
“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.
The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).
“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
Not just elders
Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”
Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”
Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”
Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.
Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.
“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.
The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
Anecdotal reports
“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”
The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.
The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.
In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.
“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”
Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”
Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
Mortality ‘remarkably high’
The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.
Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.
Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.
“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
High-risk phenotype
Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.
Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).
Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).
“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.
The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).
“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
Not just elders
Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”
Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”
Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”
Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.
Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.
“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.
The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
Anecdotal reports
“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”
The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.
The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.
In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.
“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”
Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”
Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
Mortality ‘remarkably high’
The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.
Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.
Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.
“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
High-risk phenotype
Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.
Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).
Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).
“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.
The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).
“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
Not just elders
Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”
Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”
Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”
Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
From Neurology
Mental illness tied to increased mortality in COVID-19
A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.
Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.
“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.
The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
Negative impact
“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.
“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.
To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.
The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .
Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).
Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
Vulnerability to stress
In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).
In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).
Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.
Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
Quality care
Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”
The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.
Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.
“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.
No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.
A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.
Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.
“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.
The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
Negative impact
“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.
“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.
To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.
The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .
Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).
Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
Vulnerability to stress
In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).
In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).
Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.
Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
Quality care
Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”
The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.
Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.
“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.
No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.
A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.
Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.
“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.
The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
Negative impact
“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.
“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.
To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.
The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .
Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).
Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
Vulnerability to stress
In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).
In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).
Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.
Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
Quality care
Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”
The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.
Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.
“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.
No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.
Nerve damage linked to prone positioning in COVID-19
A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.
“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.
The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
Unique type of nerve injury
Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.
“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.
With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.
Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”
Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.
The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.
The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
A major contributor
Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”
“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.
“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.
The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.
“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.
Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.
Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.
Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.
“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.
The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
Irreversible damage?
Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”
Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”
The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.
“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.
The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
Unique type of nerve injury
Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.
“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.
With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.
Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”
Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.
The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.
The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
A major contributor
Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”
“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.
“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.
The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.
“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.
Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.
Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.
Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.
“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.
The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
Irreversible damage?
Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”
Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”
The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.
“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.
The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
Unique type of nerve injury
Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.
“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.
With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.
Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”
Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.
The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.
The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
A major contributor
Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”
“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.
“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.
The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.
“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.
Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.
Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.
Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.
“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.
The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
Irreversible damage?
Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”
Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”
The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
Pesco-Mediterranean diet, fasting ‘ideal’ to reduce CVD risk
A Pesco-Mediterranean diet consisting of plants, legumes, nuts, whole grains, extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), moderate amounts of dairy products, and fish and/or seafood, together with intermittent fasting (also called time-restricted eating), can reduce risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new review.
The authors presented the research and conceptual underpinnings of this approach, which “proposes that following a Pesco-Mediterranean diet with time-restricted eating is evidence-based and ideal for reducing cardiovascular risk,” study coauthor Sarah Smith, PhD, RN, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.
The review was published online September 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
‘Omnivore’s dilemma’
A host of epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials support an association between the traditional Mediterranean diet and lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality, coronary heart disease, metabolic syndrome, neurodegenerative diseases, and other adverse outcome. The diet has been subsequently endorsed by several sets of guidelines, including those from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, and the 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology primary prevention guidelines.
“Although humans are omnivores and can subsist on a myriad of foods, the ideal diet for health remains a dilemma for many people,” lead author James H. O’Keefe, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Saint Luke’s, said in a news release.
“Plant-rich diets reduce CVD risk; however, veganism is difficult to follow and can result in important nutrient deficiencies,” he stated.
On the other hand, “the standard American diet is high in red meat, especially processed meat from animals raised in inhumane conditions, fed unnatural foods, and often treated with hormones and antibiotics,” the authors pointed out.
Together with overconsumption of red meat, sugar and processed food contribute to poor health outcomes, Dr. Smith noted.
The review was designed to present the Pesco-Mediterranean diet as “a solution to the ‘omnivore’s dilemma’ about what to eat,” said Dr. O’Keefe.
Study coauthor Ibrahim M. Saeed, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s, added that the research “attempts to emphasize the results of landmark prospective trials that highlight good, healthy eating options rather than just [foods that people would] want to avoid.”
Key components
The traditional Mediterranean diet includes “unrestricted use of EVOO,” but the quality of the olive oil is “crucial” and it must be unrefined and cold pressed, the authors emphasized.
The “highly bioactive” polyphenols likely “underlie EVOO’s numerous cardiometabolic benefits,” the researchers wrote, noting that the 2014 PREDIMED trial provided “first-level scientific evidence of [EVOO’s] cardioprotective effects [if used] within the context of the Mediterranean diet.”
The authors recommend “generous use” of EVOO in salad dressings and vegetable dishes, pasta, rice, fish, sauces, or legumes.
They also review the role of tree nuts, noting that they are “nutrient-dense foods rich in unsaturated fats, fiber, protein, polyphenols, phytosterols, tocopherols, and nonsodium minerals” and have been shown beneficial in CVD prevention.
Legumes play a “central role” in the Mediterranean diet and are an “excellent source” of vegetable protein, folate, magnesium, and fiber. Legume consumption is associated with lowered risk for CVD, as well as improved blood glucose, cholesterol, blood pressure, and body weight, the authors stated.
Whole grains like barley, whole oats, brown rice, and quinoa are likewise central components of the traditional Mediterranean diet. The authors warned that refined grain products and commercial precooked pasta or pizza should be “consumed only in small amounts.”
Window of time
In time-restricted eating (which is one type of intermittent fasting), the daily intake of food is limited to a window of time, usually 6-12 hours each day, the authors explained.
When done regularly, this type of eating has been shown to both decrease intra-abdominal adipose tissue and reduce free-radical production. Additionally, it “elicits powerful cellular responses” that may reduce risks for systemic inflammation, diabetes, CVD, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.
However, the authors warned, the evidence supporting time-restricted eating is still preliminary.
‘Let food be thy medicine’
Andrew Freeman, MD, cochair of the ACC’s nutrition & lifestyle work group, cautioned that many American plant-based Mediterranean diets often include large amount of feta cheese and lamb and foods are often “heavily doused” in olive oil, while the traditional Mediterranean diet consists primarily of greens and lentils and is plant based.
“The goal would be to have a whole grain and leafy vegetables as the center of the meal, and – if an animal product such as fish is included – it should be limited to as little as possible and used as the garnish rather than the main dish,” he stated.
Moreover, fish are often exposed to large amount of toxins, heavy metals, and microplastics, so “don’t overdo eating fish,” he advised.
Dr. Freeman said that intermittent fasting “has a lot of promise and no harm” and concentrating food consumption during a shorter period in the day instead of “grazing throughout the day” will reduce constant snacking. “But don’t gorge yourself during those hours,” he warned.
Dr. Freeman concluded by citing the guidance of Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine.
“There’s some real truth to that,” he added.
No source of funding was listed. Dr. Smith and Dr. Freeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Keefe has a major ownership interest in CardioTabs, a supplement company that sells some products containing omega-3 fatty acids.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A Pesco-Mediterranean diet consisting of plants, legumes, nuts, whole grains, extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), moderate amounts of dairy products, and fish and/or seafood, together with intermittent fasting (also called time-restricted eating), can reduce risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new review.
The authors presented the research and conceptual underpinnings of this approach, which “proposes that following a Pesco-Mediterranean diet with time-restricted eating is evidence-based and ideal for reducing cardiovascular risk,” study coauthor Sarah Smith, PhD, RN, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.
The review was published online September 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
‘Omnivore’s dilemma’
A host of epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials support an association between the traditional Mediterranean diet and lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality, coronary heart disease, metabolic syndrome, neurodegenerative diseases, and other adverse outcome. The diet has been subsequently endorsed by several sets of guidelines, including those from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, and the 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology primary prevention guidelines.
“Although humans are omnivores and can subsist on a myriad of foods, the ideal diet for health remains a dilemma for many people,” lead author James H. O’Keefe, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Saint Luke’s, said in a news release.
“Plant-rich diets reduce CVD risk; however, veganism is difficult to follow and can result in important nutrient deficiencies,” he stated.
On the other hand, “the standard American diet is high in red meat, especially processed meat from animals raised in inhumane conditions, fed unnatural foods, and often treated with hormones and antibiotics,” the authors pointed out.
Together with overconsumption of red meat, sugar and processed food contribute to poor health outcomes, Dr. Smith noted.
The review was designed to present the Pesco-Mediterranean diet as “a solution to the ‘omnivore’s dilemma’ about what to eat,” said Dr. O’Keefe.
Study coauthor Ibrahim M. Saeed, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s, added that the research “attempts to emphasize the results of landmark prospective trials that highlight good, healthy eating options rather than just [foods that people would] want to avoid.”
Key components
The traditional Mediterranean diet includes “unrestricted use of EVOO,” but the quality of the olive oil is “crucial” and it must be unrefined and cold pressed, the authors emphasized.
The “highly bioactive” polyphenols likely “underlie EVOO’s numerous cardiometabolic benefits,” the researchers wrote, noting that the 2014 PREDIMED trial provided “first-level scientific evidence of [EVOO’s] cardioprotective effects [if used] within the context of the Mediterranean diet.”
The authors recommend “generous use” of EVOO in salad dressings and vegetable dishes, pasta, rice, fish, sauces, or legumes.
They also review the role of tree nuts, noting that they are “nutrient-dense foods rich in unsaturated fats, fiber, protein, polyphenols, phytosterols, tocopherols, and nonsodium minerals” and have been shown beneficial in CVD prevention.
Legumes play a “central role” in the Mediterranean diet and are an “excellent source” of vegetable protein, folate, magnesium, and fiber. Legume consumption is associated with lowered risk for CVD, as well as improved blood glucose, cholesterol, blood pressure, and body weight, the authors stated.
Whole grains like barley, whole oats, brown rice, and quinoa are likewise central components of the traditional Mediterranean diet. The authors warned that refined grain products and commercial precooked pasta or pizza should be “consumed only in small amounts.”
Window of time
In time-restricted eating (which is one type of intermittent fasting), the daily intake of food is limited to a window of time, usually 6-12 hours each day, the authors explained.
When done regularly, this type of eating has been shown to both decrease intra-abdominal adipose tissue and reduce free-radical production. Additionally, it “elicits powerful cellular responses” that may reduce risks for systemic inflammation, diabetes, CVD, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.
However, the authors warned, the evidence supporting time-restricted eating is still preliminary.
‘Let food be thy medicine’
Andrew Freeman, MD, cochair of the ACC’s nutrition & lifestyle work group, cautioned that many American plant-based Mediterranean diets often include large amount of feta cheese and lamb and foods are often “heavily doused” in olive oil, while the traditional Mediterranean diet consists primarily of greens and lentils and is plant based.
“The goal would be to have a whole grain and leafy vegetables as the center of the meal, and – if an animal product such as fish is included – it should be limited to as little as possible and used as the garnish rather than the main dish,” he stated.
Moreover, fish are often exposed to large amount of toxins, heavy metals, and microplastics, so “don’t overdo eating fish,” he advised.
Dr. Freeman said that intermittent fasting “has a lot of promise and no harm” and concentrating food consumption during a shorter period in the day instead of “grazing throughout the day” will reduce constant snacking. “But don’t gorge yourself during those hours,” he warned.
Dr. Freeman concluded by citing the guidance of Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine.
“There’s some real truth to that,” he added.
No source of funding was listed. Dr. Smith and Dr. Freeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Keefe has a major ownership interest in CardioTabs, a supplement company that sells some products containing omega-3 fatty acids.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A Pesco-Mediterranean diet consisting of plants, legumes, nuts, whole grains, extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), moderate amounts of dairy products, and fish and/or seafood, together with intermittent fasting (also called time-restricted eating), can reduce risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new review.
The authors presented the research and conceptual underpinnings of this approach, which “proposes that following a Pesco-Mediterranean diet with time-restricted eating is evidence-based and ideal for reducing cardiovascular risk,” study coauthor Sarah Smith, PhD, RN, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.
The review was published online September 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
‘Omnivore’s dilemma’
A host of epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials support an association between the traditional Mediterranean diet and lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality, coronary heart disease, metabolic syndrome, neurodegenerative diseases, and other adverse outcome. The diet has been subsequently endorsed by several sets of guidelines, including those from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, and the 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology primary prevention guidelines.
“Although humans are omnivores and can subsist on a myriad of foods, the ideal diet for health remains a dilemma for many people,” lead author James H. O’Keefe, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Saint Luke’s, said in a news release.
“Plant-rich diets reduce CVD risk; however, veganism is difficult to follow and can result in important nutrient deficiencies,” he stated.
On the other hand, “the standard American diet is high in red meat, especially processed meat from animals raised in inhumane conditions, fed unnatural foods, and often treated with hormones and antibiotics,” the authors pointed out.
Together with overconsumption of red meat, sugar and processed food contribute to poor health outcomes, Dr. Smith noted.
The review was designed to present the Pesco-Mediterranean diet as “a solution to the ‘omnivore’s dilemma’ about what to eat,” said Dr. O’Keefe.
Study coauthor Ibrahim M. Saeed, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s, added that the research “attempts to emphasize the results of landmark prospective trials that highlight good, healthy eating options rather than just [foods that people would] want to avoid.”
Key components
The traditional Mediterranean diet includes “unrestricted use of EVOO,” but the quality of the olive oil is “crucial” and it must be unrefined and cold pressed, the authors emphasized.
The “highly bioactive” polyphenols likely “underlie EVOO’s numerous cardiometabolic benefits,” the researchers wrote, noting that the 2014 PREDIMED trial provided “first-level scientific evidence of [EVOO’s] cardioprotective effects [if used] within the context of the Mediterranean diet.”
The authors recommend “generous use” of EVOO in salad dressings and vegetable dishes, pasta, rice, fish, sauces, or legumes.
They also review the role of tree nuts, noting that they are “nutrient-dense foods rich in unsaturated fats, fiber, protein, polyphenols, phytosterols, tocopherols, and nonsodium minerals” and have been shown beneficial in CVD prevention.
Legumes play a “central role” in the Mediterranean diet and are an “excellent source” of vegetable protein, folate, magnesium, and fiber. Legume consumption is associated with lowered risk for CVD, as well as improved blood glucose, cholesterol, blood pressure, and body weight, the authors stated.
Whole grains like barley, whole oats, brown rice, and quinoa are likewise central components of the traditional Mediterranean diet. The authors warned that refined grain products and commercial precooked pasta or pizza should be “consumed only in small amounts.”
Window of time
In time-restricted eating (which is one type of intermittent fasting), the daily intake of food is limited to a window of time, usually 6-12 hours each day, the authors explained.
When done regularly, this type of eating has been shown to both decrease intra-abdominal adipose tissue and reduce free-radical production. Additionally, it “elicits powerful cellular responses” that may reduce risks for systemic inflammation, diabetes, CVD, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.
However, the authors warned, the evidence supporting time-restricted eating is still preliminary.
‘Let food be thy medicine’
Andrew Freeman, MD, cochair of the ACC’s nutrition & lifestyle work group, cautioned that many American plant-based Mediterranean diets often include large amount of feta cheese and lamb and foods are often “heavily doused” in olive oil, while the traditional Mediterranean diet consists primarily of greens and lentils and is plant based.
“The goal would be to have a whole grain and leafy vegetables as the center of the meal, and – if an animal product such as fish is included – it should be limited to as little as possible and used as the garnish rather than the main dish,” he stated.
Moreover, fish are often exposed to large amount of toxins, heavy metals, and microplastics, so “don’t overdo eating fish,” he advised.
Dr. Freeman said that intermittent fasting “has a lot of promise and no harm” and concentrating food consumption during a shorter period in the day instead of “grazing throughout the day” will reduce constant snacking. “But don’t gorge yourself during those hours,” he warned.
Dr. Freeman concluded by citing the guidance of Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine.
“There’s some real truth to that,” he added.
No source of funding was listed. Dr. Smith and Dr. Freeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Keefe has a major ownership interest in CardioTabs, a supplement company that sells some products containing omega-3 fatty acids.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Reassuring findings on SSRIs and diabetes risk in children
SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.
Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.
On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.
“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.
“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.
The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Limited evidence
Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.
However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.
In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.
“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.
For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.
The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.
The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.
Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.
“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.
In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.
A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.
The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.
Close monitoring required
An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.
Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.
For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).
There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.
The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).
The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)
The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.
“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.
“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.
She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.
Useful ‘real-world data’
William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”
Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”
The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.
The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.
Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.
On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.
“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.
“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.
The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Limited evidence
Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.
However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.
In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.
“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.
For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.
The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.
The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.
Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.
“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.
In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.
A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.
The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.
Close monitoring required
An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.
Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.
For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).
There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.
The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).
The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)
The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.
“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.
“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.
She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.
Useful ‘real-world data’
William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”
Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”
The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.
The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.
Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.
On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.
“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.
“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.
The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Limited evidence
Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.
However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.
In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.
“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.
For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.
The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.
The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.
Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.
“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.
In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.
A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.
The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.
Close monitoring required
An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.
Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.
For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).
There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.
The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).
The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)
The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.
“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.
“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.
She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.
Useful ‘real-world data’
William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”
Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”
The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.
The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Counterintuitive findings for domestic violence during COVID-19
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.
In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.
Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.
“I was surprised by this finding, and we certainly were not expecting it – in fact, I expected that the vast majority of victims would report that victimization got worse during stay-at-home policies, but that wasn’t the case,” lead author Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“I think the biggest take-home message is that some victims got better, but the vast majority stayed the same. These victims, men and women, were isolated with their perpetrator during COVID-19, so she added.
The study was published online Sept. 1 in Injury Prevention.
‘Shadow pandemic?’
The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.
“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.
The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.
IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.
Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.
Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
First peek
Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.
The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).
Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.
Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.
“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
Lethality indicators
Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.
“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.
“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.
Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”
She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”
Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.
“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.
She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.
“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.
Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.
In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.
Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.
“I was surprised by this finding, and we certainly were not expecting it – in fact, I expected that the vast majority of victims would report that victimization got worse during stay-at-home policies, but that wasn’t the case,” lead author Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“I think the biggest take-home message is that some victims got better, but the vast majority stayed the same. These victims, men and women, were isolated with their perpetrator during COVID-19, so she added.
The study was published online Sept. 1 in Injury Prevention.
‘Shadow pandemic?’
The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.
“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.
The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.
IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.
Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.
Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
First peek
Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.
The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).
Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.
Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.
“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
Lethality indicators
Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.
“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.
“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.
Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”
She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”
Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.
“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.
She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.
“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.
Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.
In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.
Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.
“I was surprised by this finding, and we certainly were not expecting it – in fact, I expected that the vast majority of victims would report that victimization got worse during stay-at-home policies, but that wasn’t the case,” lead author Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“I think the biggest take-home message is that some victims got better, but the vast majority stayed the same. These victims, men and women, were isolated with their perpetrator during COVID-19, so she added.
The study was published online Sept. 1 in Injury Prevention.
‘Shadow pandemic?’
The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.
“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.
The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.
IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.
Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.
Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
First peek
Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.
The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).
Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.
Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.
“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
Lethality indicators
Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.
“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.
“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.
Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”
She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”
Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.
“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.
She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.
“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.
Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Worry over family, friends the main driver of COVID-19 stress
Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.
Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.
Close to half of participants were worried about family members contracting the virus, one third were worried about unknowingly infecting others, and 20% were worried about contracting the virus themselves.
“We were a little surprised to see that people were more concerned about others than about themselves, specifically worrying about whether a family member would contract COVID-19 and whether they might unintentionally infect others,” lead author Ran Barzilay, MD, PhD, child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), told Medscape Medical News.
The study was published online August 20 in Translational Psychiatry.
Interactive platform
“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.
“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.
Survey participants then shared it with their contacts.
“To date, over 7000 people have completed it – mostly from the US but also from Israel,” Barzilay said.
The survey was anonymous, but participants could choose to have follow-up contact. The survey included an interactive 21-item resilience questionnaire and an assessment of COVID-19-related items related to worries concerning the following: contracting, dying from, or currently having the illness; having a family member contract the illness; unknowingly infecting others; and experiencing significant financial burden.
A total of 1350 participants took a second survey on anxiety and depression that utilized the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 and the Patient Health Questionnaire–2.
“What makes the survey unique is that it’s not just a means of collecting data but also an interactive platform that gives participants immediate personalized feedback, based on their responses to the resilience and well-being surveys, with practical tips and recommendations for stress management and ways of boosting resilience,” Barzilay said.
Tend and befriend
Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).
After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).
Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.
Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).
On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).
Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.
Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.
The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”
This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
Demographic biases
Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”
Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.
“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.
Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.
E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”
Holman, who was not involved with the study, told Medscape Medical News that the “findings do not address the real impact of COVID-19 on the hardest-hit communities in America – poor, Black, and Latinx communities, where a large proportion of essential workers live.”
Barzilay acknowledged that, “unfortunately, because of the way the study was circulated, it did not reach minorities, which is one of the things we want to improve.”
The study is ongoing and has been translated into Spanish, French, and Hebrew. The team plans to collect data on diverse populations.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Lifespan Brain Institute of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Penn Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, and in part by the Zuckerman STEM Leadership Program. Barzilay serves on the scientific board and reports stock ownership in Taliaz Health. The other authors, Golnaz, Vinkers, and Holman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.
Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.
Close to half of participants were worried about family members contracting the virus, one third were worried about unknowingly infecting others, and 20% were worried about contracting the virus themselves.
“We were a little surprised to see that people were more concerned about others than about themselves, specifically worrying about whether a family member would contract COVID-19 and whether they might unintentionally infect others,” lead author Ran Barzilay, MD, PhD, child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), told Medscape Medical News.
The study was published online August 20 in Translational Psychiatry.
Interactive platform
“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.
“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.
Survey participants then shared it with their contacts.
“To date, over 7000 people have completed it – mostly from the US but also from Israel,” Barzilay said.
The survey was anonymous, but participants could choose to have follow-up contact. The survey included an interactive 21-item resilience questionnaire and an assessment of COVID-19-related items related to worries concerning the following: contracting, dying from, or currently having the illness; having a family member contract the illness; unknowingly infecting others; and experiencing significant financial burden.
A total of 1350 participants took a second survey on anxiety and depression that utilized the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 and the Patient Health Questionnaire–2.
“What makes the survey unique is that it’s not just a means of collecting data but also an interactive platform that gives participants immediate personalized feedback, based on their responses to the resilience and well-being surveys, with practical tips and recommendations for stress management and ways of boosting resilience,” Barzilay said.
Tend and befriend
Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).
After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).
Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.
Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).
On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).
Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.
Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.
The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”
This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
Demographic biases
Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”
Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.
“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.
Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.
E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”
Holman, who was not involved with the study, told Medscape Medical News that the “findings do not address the real impact of COVID-19 on the hardest-hit communities in America – poor, Black, and Latinx communities, where a large proportion of essential workers live.”
Barzilay acknowledged that, “unfortunately, because of the way the study was circulated, it did not reach minorities, which is one of the things we want to improve.”
The study is ongoing and has been translated into Spanish, French, and Hebrew. The team plans to collect data on diverse populations.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Lifespan Brain Institute of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Penn Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, and in part by the Zuckerman STEM Leadership Program. Barzilay serves on the scientific board and reports stock ownership in Taliaz Health. The other authors, Golnaz, Vinkers, and Holman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.
Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.
Close to half of participants were worried about family members contracting the virus, one third were worried about unknowingly infecting others, and 20% were worried about contracting the virus themselves.
“We were a little surprised to see that people were more concerned about others than about themselves, specifically worrying about whether a family member would contract COVID-19 and whether they might unintentionally infect others,” lead author Ran Barzilay, MD, PhD, child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), told Medscape Medical News.
The study was published online August 20 in Translational Psychiatry.
Interactive platform
“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.
“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.
Survey participants then shared it with their contacts.
“To date, over 7000 people have completed it – mostly from the US but also from Israel,” Barzilay said.
The survey was anonymous, but participants could choose to have follow-up contact. The survey included an interactive 21-item resilience questionnaire and an assessment of COVID-19-related items related to worries concerning the following: contracting, dying from, or currently having the illness; having a family member contract the illness; unknowingly infecting others; and experiencing significant financial burden.
A total of 1350 participants took a second survey on anxiety and depression that utilized the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 and the Patient Health Questionnaire–2.
“What makes the survey unique is that it’s not just a means of collecting data but also an interactive platform that gives participants immediate personalized feedback, based on their responses to the resilience and well-being surveys, with practical tips and recommendations for stress management and ways of boosting resilience,” Barzilay said.
Tend and befriend
Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).
After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).
Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.
Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).
On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).
Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.
Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.
The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”
This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
Demographic biases
Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”
Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.
“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.
Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.
E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”
Holman, who was not involved with the study, told Medscape Medical News that the “findings do not address the real impact of COVID-19 on the hardest-hit communities in America – poor, Black, and Latinx communities, where a large proportion of essential workers live.”
Barzilay acknowledged that, “unfortunately, because of the way the study was circulated, it did not reach minorities, which is one of the things we want to improve.”
The study is ongoing and has been translated into Spanish, French, and Hebrew. The team plans to collect data on diverse populations.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Lifespan Brain Institute of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Penn Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, and in part by the Zuckerman STEM Leadership Program. Barzilay serves on the scientific board and reports stock ownership in Taliaz Health. The other authors, Golnaz, Vinkers, and Holman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19: New guidance to stem mental health crisis in frontline HCPs
A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.
Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.
“Support needs to be deployed in multiple dimensions – including individual, organizational, and societal levels – and include training in resilience, stress reduction, emotional awareness, and self-care strategies,” lead author Rachel Schwartz, PhD, health services researcher, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
The review was published Aug. 21 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
An opportune moment
Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”
Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.
Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.
“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.
The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.
Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.
Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
‘Uniquely isolated’
Dr. Margolis noted that
“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.
Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.
Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.
Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.
“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
‘Battle buddies’
Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.
Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.
“We connect residents with each other, and they form pairs to support each other and watch for warning signs such as withdrawal from colleagues, being frequently tearful, not showing up at work or showing up late, missing assignments, making mistakes at work, increased use of alcohol, or verbalizing serious concerns,” Dr. Anand said.
If the buddy shows any of these warning signs, he or she can be directed to appropriate resources to get help.
Since the pandemic has interfered with the ability to connect with colleagues and family members, attention should be paid to addressing the social support needs of clinicians.
Dr. Anand suggested that clinicians maintain contact with counselors, friends, and family, even if they cannot be together in person and must connect “virtually.”
Resilience and strength training are “key” components of reducing clinician distress, but trainings as well as processing groups and support workshops should be offered during protected time, Dr. Margolis advised, since it can be burdensome for clinicians to wake up early or stay late to attend these sessions.
Leaders and administrators should “model self-care and well-being,” she noted. For example, sending emails to clinicians late at night or on weekends creates an expectation of a rapid reply, which leads to additional pressure for the clinician.
“This is of the most powerful unspoken curricula we can develop,” Dr. Margolis emphasized.
Self-care critical
Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”
Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.
The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”
They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.
The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.
Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.
“Support needs to be deployed in multiple dimensions – including individual, organizational, and societal levels – and include training in resilience, stress reduction, emotional awareness, and self-care strategies,” lead author Rachel Schwartz, PhD, health services researcher, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
The review was published Aug. 21 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
An opportune moment
Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”
Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.
Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.
“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.
The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.
Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.
Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
‘Uniquely isolated’
Dr. Margolis noted that
“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.
Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.
Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.
Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.
“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
‘Battle buddies’
Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.
Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.
“We connect residents with each other, and they form pairs to support each other and watch for warning signs such as withdrawal from colleagues, being frequently tearful, not showing up at work or showing up late, missing assignments, making mistakes at work, increased use of alcohol, or verbalizing serious concerns,” Dr. Anand said.
If the buddy shows any of these warning signs, he or she can be directed to appropriate resources to get help.
Since the pandemic has interfered with the ability to connect with colleagues and family members, attention should be paid to addressing the social support needs of clinicians.
Dr. Anand suggested that clinicians maintain contact with counselors, friends, and family, even if they cannot be together in person and must connect “virtually.”
Resilience and strength training are “key” components of reducing clinician distress, but trainings as well as processing groups and support workshops should be offered during protected time, Dr. Margolis advised, since it can be burdensome for clinicians to wake up early or stay late to attend these sessions.
Leaders and administrators should “model self-care and well-being,” she noted. For example, sending emails to clinicians late at night or on weekends creates an expectation of a rapid reply, which leads to additional pressure for the clinician.
“This is of the most powerful unspoken curricula we can develop,” Dr. Margolis emphasized.
Self-care critical
Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”
Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.
The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”
They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.
The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.
Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.
“Support needs to be deployed in multiple dimensions – including individual, organizational, and societal levels – and include training in resilience, stress reduction, emotional awareness, and self-care strategies,” lead author Rachel Schwartz, PhD, health services researcher, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
The review was published Aug. 21 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
An opportune moment
Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”
Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.
Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.
“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.
The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.
Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.
Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
‘Uniquely isolated’
Dr. Margolis noted that
“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.
Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.
Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.
Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.
“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
‘Battle buddies’
Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.
Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.
“We connect residents with each other, and they form pairs to support each other and watch for warning signs such as withdrawal from colleagues, being frequently tearful, not showing up at work or showing up late, missing assignments, making mistakes at work, increased use of alcohol, or verbalizing serious concerns,” Dr. Anand said.
If the buddy shows any of these warning signs, he or she can be directed to appropriate resources to get help.
Since the pandemic has interfered with the ability to connect with colleagues and family members, attention should be paid to addressing the social support needs of clinicians.
Dr. Anand suggested that clinicians maintain contact with counselors, friends, and family, even if they cannot be together in person and must connect “virtually.”
Resilience and strength training are “key” components of reducing clinician distress, but trainings as well as processing groups and support workshops should be offered during protected time, Dr. Margolis advised, since it can be burdensome for clinicians to wake up early or stay late to attend these sessions.
Leaders and administrators should “model self-care and well-being,” she noted. For example, sending emails to clinicians late at night or on weekends creates an expectation of a rapid reply, which leads to additional pressure for the clinician.
“This is of the most powerful unspoken curricula we can develop,” Dr. Margolis emphasized.
Self-care critical
Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”
Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.
The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”
They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.
The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New schizophrenia treatment guideline released
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 at home: What does optimal care look like?
Marilyn Stebbins, PharmD, fell ill at the end of February 2020. Initially diagnosed with multifocal pneumonia and treated with antibiotics, she later developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, and shortness of breath. She was hospitalized in early March and was diagnosed with COVID-19.
It was still early in the pandemic, and testing was not available for her husband. After she was discharged, her husband isolated himself as much as possible. But that limited the amount of care he could offer.
“When I came home after 8 days in the ICU, I felt completely alone and terrified of not being able to care for myself and not knowing how much care my husband could provide,” said Dr. Stebbins, professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.
“I can’t even imagine what it would have been like if I had been home alone without my husband in the house,” she said. “I think about the people who died at home and understand how that might happen.”
Dr. Stebbins is one of tens of thousands of people who, whether hospitalized and discharged or never admitted for inpatient care, needed to find ways to convalesce at home. Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show that, of 326,674 beneficiaries who tested positive for COVID-19 between May 16 and June 11, 2020, 109,607 were hospitalized, suggesting that two-thirds were outpatients.
Most attention has focused on the sickest patients, leaving less severe cases to fall through the cracks. Despite fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and a surfeit of other symptoms, there are few available resources and all too little support to help patients navigate the physical and emotional struggles of contending with COVID-19 at home.
No ‘cookie-cutter’ approach
The speed with which the pandemic progressed caught public health systems off guard, but now, “it is essential to put into place the infrastructure to care for the physical and mental health needs of patients at home because most are in the community and many, if not most, still aren’t receiving sufficient support at home,” said Dr. Stebbins.
said Gary LeRoy, MD, a family physician in Dayton, Ohio. He emphasized that there is “no cookie-cutter formula” for home care, because every patient’s situation is different.
“I begin by having a detailed conversation with each patient to ascertain whether their home environment is safe and to paint a picture of their circumstances,” Dr. LeRoy, who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.
Dr. LeRoy suggested questions that constitute “not just a ‘medical’ checklist but a ‘whole life’ checklist.”
- Do you have access to food, water, medications, sanitation/cleaning supplies, a thermometer, and other necessities? If not, who might assist in providing those?
- Do you need help with activities of daily living and self-care?
- Who else lives in your household? Do they have signs and symptoms of the virus? Have they been tested?
- Do you have enough physical space between you and other household members?
- Do you have children? How are they being cared for?
- What type of work do you do? What are the implications for your employment if you are unable to work for an extended period?
- Do you have an emotional, social, and spiritual support system (e.g., family, friends, community, church)?
- Do you have concerns I haven’t mentioned?
Patients’ responses will inform the management plan and determine what medical and social resources are needed, he said.
Daily check-in
Dr. Stebbins said the nurse case manager from her insurance company called her daily after she came home from the hospital. She was told that a public health nurse would also call, but no one from the health department called for days – a situation she hopes has improved.
One way or another, she said, “health care providers [or their staff] should check in with patients daily, either telephonically or via video.” She noted that video is superior, because “someone who isn’t a family member needs to put eyes on a patient and might be able to detect warning signs that a family member without healthcare training might not notice.”
Dr. LeRoy, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, said that, given his time constraints, a nurse or medical assistant in his practice conducts the daily check-ins and notifies him if the patient has fever or other symptoms.
“Under ordinary circumstances, when a patient comes to see me for some type of medical condition, I get to meet the patient, consider what might be going on, then order a test, wait for the results, and suggest a treatment plan. But these are anything but ordinary circumstances,” said Matthew Exline, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
“That traditional structure broke down with COVID-19, when we may have test results without even seeing the patient. And without this interaction, it is harder to know as a physician what course of action to take,” he said in an interview.
Once a diagnosis has been made, the physician has at least some data to help guide next steps, even if there has been no prior meeting with the patient.
For example, a positive test raises a host of issues, not the least of which is the risk of spreading the infection to other household members and questions about whether to go the hospital. Moreover, for patients, positive tests can have serious ramifications.
“Severe shortness of breath at rest is not typical of the flu, nor is loss of taste or smell,” said Dr. Exline. Practitioners must educate patients and families about specific symptoms of COVID-19, including shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell, and gastrointestinal or neurologic symptoms, and when to seek emergency care.
Dr. LeRoy suggests buying a pulse oximeter to gauge blood oxygen levels and pulse rate. Together with a thermometer, a portable blood pressure monitor, and, if indicated, a blood glucose monitor, these devices provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of vital signs.
Dr. LeRoy also educates patients and their families about when to seek medical attention.
Dr. Stebbins takes a similar approach. “Family members are part of, not apart from, the care of patients with COVID-19, and it’s our responsibility as healthcare providers to consider them in the patient’s care plan.”
Keeping family safe
Beyond care, family members need a plan to keep themselves healthy, too.
“A patient with COVID-19 at home should self-quarantine as much as possible to keep other family members safe, if they continue to live in the same house,” Dr. Exline said.
Ideally, uninfected family members should stay with relatives or friends. When that’s not possible, everyone in the household should wear a mask, be vigilant about hand washing, and wipe down all surfaces – including doorknobs, light switches, faucet handles, cellphones, and utensils – regularly with bleach or an alcohol solution.
Caregivers should also minimize the amount of time they are exposed to the patient.
“Set food, water, and medication on the night table and leave the room rather than spending hours at the bedside, since limiting exposure to viral load reduces the chances of contagion,” said Dr. Exline.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers guidance for household members caring for COVID-19 patients at home. It provides tips on how to help patients follow the doctor’s instructions and ways to ensure adequate hydration and rest, among others.
Patients with COVID-19 who live alone face more formidable challenges.
Dr. LeRoy says physicians can help patients by educating themselves about available social services in their community so they can provide appropriate referrals and connections. Such initiatives can include meal programs, friendly visit and financial assistance programs, as well as childcare and home health agencies.
He noted that Aunt Bertha, a social care network, provides a guide to social services throughout the United States. Additional resources are available on USA.gov.
Comfort and support
Patients with COVID-19 need to be as comfortable and as supported as possible, both physically and emotionally.
“While I was sick, my dogs curled up next to me and didn’t leave my side, and they were my saving grace. There’s not enough to be said about emotional support,” Dr. Stebbins said.
Although important, emotional support is not enough. For patients with respiratory disorders, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, or pneumonia, their subjective symptoms of shortness of breath, air hunger, or cough may improve with supplemental oxygen at home. Other measures include repositioning of the patient to lessen the body weight over the lungs or the use of lung percussion, Leroy said.
He added that improvement may also come from drainage of sputum from the airway passages, the use of agents to liquefy thick sputum (mucolytics), or aerosolized bronchodilator medications.
However, Dr. LeRoy cautioned, “one remedy does not work for everyone – an individual can improve gradually by using these home support interventions, or their respiratory status can deteriorate rapidly despite all these interventions.”
For this reason, he says patients should consult their personal physician to determine which, if any, of these home treatments would be best for their particular situation.
Patients who need emotional support, psychotherapy, or psychotropic medications may find teletherapy helpful. Guidance for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers regarding the treatment of COVID-19 patients via teletherapy can be found on the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers websites.
Pharmacists can also help ensure patient safety, Dr. Stebbins said.
If a patient has not picked up their usual medications, Dr. Stebbins said, “they may need a check-in call. Some may be ill and alone and may need encouragement to seek medical attention, and some may have no means of getting to the pharmacy and may need medications delivered.”
A home healthcare agency may also be helpful for homebound patients. David Bersson, director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, N.J., has arranged in-home caregivers for patients with COVID-19.
The amount of care that professional caregivers provide can range from several hours per week to full-time, depending on the patient’s needs and budget, and can include companionship, Mr. Bersson said in an interview.
Because patient and caregiver safety are paramount, caregivers are thoroughly trained in protection and decontamination procedures and are regularly tested for COVID-19 prior to being sent into a client’s home.
Health insurance companies do not cover this service, Mr. Bersson noted, but the VetAssist program covers home care for veterans and their spouses who meet income requirements.
Caregiving and companionship are both vital pieces of the at-home care puzzle. “It was the virtual emotional support I got from friends, family, coworkers, and healthcare professionals that meant so much to me, and I know they played an important part in my recovery,” Dr. Stebbins said.
Dr. LeRoy agreed, noting that he calls patients, even if they only have mild symptoms and his nurse has already spoken to them. “The call doesn’t take much time – maybe just a 5-minute conversation – but it makes patients aware that I care.”
Dr. Stebbins, Dr. Exline, and Dr. LeRoy report no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Bersson is the director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, New Jersey.
This story first appeared on Medscape.com.
Marilyn Stebbins, PharmD, fell ill at the end of February 2020. Initially diagnosed with multifocal pneumonia and treated with antibiotics, she later developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, and shortness of breath. She was hospitalized in early March and was diagnosed with COVID-19.
It was still early in the pandemic, and testing was not available for her husband. After she was discharged, her husband isolated himself as much as possible. But that limited the amount of care he could offer.
“When I came home after 8 days in the ICU, I felt completely alone and terrified of not being able to care for myself and not knowing how much care my husband could provide,” said Dr. Stebbins, professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.
“I can’t even imagine what it would have been like if I had been home alone without my husband in the house,” she said. “I think about the people who died at home and understand how that might happen.”
Dr. Stebbins is one of tens of thousands of people who, whether hospitalized and discharged or never admitted for inpatient care, needed to find ways to convalesce at home. Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show that, of 326,674 beneficiaries who tested positive for COVID-19 between May 16 and June 11, 2020, 109,607 were hospitalized, suggesting that two-thirds were outpatients.
Most attention has focused on the sickest patients, leaving less severe cases to fall through the cracks. Despite fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and a surfeit of other symptoms, there are few available resources and all too little support to help patients navigate the physical and emotional struggles of contending with COVID-19 at home.
No ‘cookie-cutter’ approach
The speed with which the pandemic progressed caught public health systems off guard, but now, “it is essential to put into place the infrastructure to care for the physical and mental health needs of patients at home because most are in the community and many, if not most, still aren’t receiving sufficient support at home,” said Dr. Stebbins.
said Gary LeRoy, MD, a family physician in Dayton, Ohio. He emphasized that there is “no cookie-cutter formula” for home care, because every patient’s situation is different.
“I begin by having a detailed conversation with each patient to ascertain whether their home environment is safe and to paint a picture of their circumstances,” Dr. LeRoy, who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.
Dr. LeRoy suggested questions that constitute “not just a ‘medical’ checklist but a ‘whole life’ checklist.”
- Do you have access to food, water, medications, sanitation/cleaning supplies, a thermometer, and other necessities? If not, who might assist in providing those?
- Do you need help with activities of daily living and self-care?
- Who else lives in your household? Do they have signs and symptoms of the virus? Have they been tested?
- Do you have enough physical space between you and other household members?
- Do you have children? How are they being cared for?
- What type of work do you do? What are the implications for your employment if you are unable to work for an extended period?
- Do you have an emotional, social, and spiritual support system (e.g., family, friends, community, church)?
- Do you have concerns I haven’t mentioned?
Patients’ responses will inform the management plan and determine what medical and social resources are needed, he said.
Daily check-in
Dr. Stebbins said the nurse case manager from her insurance company called her daily after she came home from the hospital. She was told that a public health nurse would also call, but no one from the health department called for days – a situation she hopes has improved.
One way or another, she said, “health care providers [or their staff] should check in with patients daily, either telephonically or via video.” She noted that video is superior, because “someone who isn’t a family member needs to put eyes on a patient and might be able to detect warning signs that a family member without healthcare training might not notice.”
Dr. LeRoy, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, said that, given his time constraints, a nurse or medical assistant in his practice conducts the daily check-ins and notifies him if the patient has fever or other symptoms.
“Under ordinary circumstances, when a patient comes to see me for some type of medical condition, I get to meet the patient, consider what might be going on, then order a test, wait for the results, and suggest a treatment plan. But these are anything but ordinary circumstances,” said Matthew Exline, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
“That traditional structure broke down with COVID-19, when we may have test results without even seeing the patient. And without this interaction, it is harder to know as a physician what course of action to take,” he said in an interview.
Once a diagnosis has been made, the physician has at least some data to help guide next steps, even if there has been no prior meeting with the patient.
For example, a positive test raises a host of issues, not the least of which is the risk of spreading the infection to other household members and questions about whether to go the hospital. Moreover, for patients, positive tests can have serious ramifications.
“Severe shortness of breath at rest is not typical of the flu, nor is loss of taste or smell,” said Dr. Exline. Practitioners must educate patients and families about specific symptoms of COVID-19, including shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell, and gastrointestinal or neurologic symptoms, and when to seek emergency care.
Dr. LeRoy suggests buying a pulse oximeter to gauge blood oxygen levels and pulse rate. Together with a thermometer, a portable blood pressure monitor, and, if indicated, a blood glucose monitor, these devices provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of vital signs.
Dr. LeRoy also educates patients and their families about when to seek medical attention.
Dr. Stebbins takes a similar approach. “Family members are part of, not apart from, the care of patients with COVID-19, and it’s our responsibility as healthcare providers to consider them in the patient’s care plan.”
Keeping family safe
Beyond care, family members need a plan to keep themselves healthy, too.
“A patient with COVID-19 at home should self-quarantine as much as possible to keep other family members safe, if they continue to live in the same house,” Dr. Exline said.
Ideally, uninfected family members should stay with relatives or friends. When that’s not possible, everyone in the household should wear a mask, be vigilant about hand washing, and wipe down all surfaces – including doorknobs, light switches, faucet handles, cellphones, and utensils – regularly with bleach or an alcohol solution.
Caregivers should also minimize the amount of time they are exposed to the patient.
“Set food, water, and medication on the night table and leave the room rather than spending hours at the bedside, since limiting exposure to viral load reduces the chances of contagion,” said Dr. Exline.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers guidance for household members caring for COVID-19 patients at home. It provides tips on how to help patients follow the doctor’s instructions and ways to ensure adequate hydration and rest, among others.
Patients with COVID-19 who live alone face more formidable challenges.
Dr. LeRoy says physicians can help patients by educating themselves about available social services in their community so they can provide appropriate referrals and connections. Such initiatives can include meal programs, friendly visit and financial assistance programs, as well as childcare and home health agencies.
He noted that Aunt Bertha, a social care network, provides a guide to social services throughout the United States. Additional resources are available on USA.gov.
Comfort and support
Patients with COVID-19 need to be as comfortable and as supported as possible, both physically and emotionally.
“While I was sick, my dogs curled up next to me and didn’t leave my side, and they were my saving grace. There’s not enough to be said about emotional support,” Dr. Stebbins said.
Although important, emotional support is not enough. For patients with respiratory disorders, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, or pneumonia, their subjective symptoms of shortness of breath, air hunger, or cough may improve with supplemental oxygen at home. Other measures include repositioning of the patient to lessen the body weight over the lungs or the use of lung percussion, Leroy said.
He added that improvement may also come from drainage of sputum from the airway passages, the use of agents to liquefy thick sputum (mucolytics), or aerosolized bronchodilator medications.
However, Dr. LeRoy cautioned, “one remedy does not work for everyone – an individual can improve gradually by using these home support interventions, or their respiratory status can deteriorate rapidly despite all these interventions.”
For this reason, he says patients should consult their personal physician to determine which, if any, of these home treatments would be best for their particular situation.
Patients who need emotional support, psychotherapy, or psychotropic medications may find teletherapy helpful. Guidance for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers regarding the treatment of COVID-19 patients via teletherapy can be found on the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers websites.
Pharmacists can also help ensure patient safety, Dr. Stebbins said.
If a patient has not picked up their usual medications, Dr. Stebbins said, “they may need a check-in call. Some may be ill and alone and may need encouragement to seek medical attention, and some may have no means of getting to the pharmacy and may need medications delivered.”
A home healthcare agency may also be helpful for homebound patients. David Bersson, director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, N.J., has arranged in-home caregivers for patients with COVID-19.
The amount of care that professional caregivers provide can range from several hours per week to full-time, depending on the patient’s needs and budget, and can include companionship, Mr. Bersson said in an interview.
Because patient and caregiver safety are paramount, caregivers are thoroughly trained in protection and decontamination procedures and are regularly tested for COVID-19 prior to being sent into a client’s home.
Health insurance companies do not cover this service, Mr. Bersson noted, but the VetAssist program covers home care for veterans and their spouses who meet income requirements.
Caregiving and companionship are both vital pieces of the at-home care puzzle. “It was the virtual emotional support I got from friends, family, coworkers, and healthcare professionals that meant so much to me, and I know they played an important part in my recovery,” Dr. Stebbins said.
Dr. LeRoy agreed, noting that he calls patients, even if they only have mild symptoms and his nurse has already spoken to them. “The call doesn’t take much time – maybe just a 5-minute conversation – but it makes patients aware that I care.”
Dr. Stebbins, Dr. Exline, and Dr. LeRoy report no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Bersson is the director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, New Jersey.
This story first appeared on Medscape.com.
Marilyn Stebbins, PharmD, fell ill at the end of February 2020. Initially diagnosed with multifocal pneumonia and treated with antibiotics, she later developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, and shortness of breath. She was hospitalized in early March and was diagnosed with COVID-19.
It was still early in the pandemic, and testing was not available for her husband. After she was discharged, her husband isolated himself as much as possible. But that limited the amount of care he could offer.
“When I came home after 8 days in the ICU, I felt completely alone and terrified of not being able to care for myself and not knowing how much care my husband could provide,” said Dr. Stebbins, professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.
“I can’t even imagine what it would have been like if I had been home alone without my husband in the house,” she said. “I think about the people who died at home and understand how that might happen.”
Dr. Stebbins is one of tens of thousands of people who, whether hospitalized and discharged or never admitted for inpatient care, needed to find ways to convalesce at home. Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show that, of 326,674 beneficiaries who tested positive for COVID-19 between May 16 and June 11, 2020, 109,607 were hospitalized, suggesting that two-thirds were outpatients.
Most attention has focused on the sickest patients, leaving less severe cases to fall through the cracks. Despite fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and a surfeit of other symptoms, there are few available resources and all too little support to help patients navigate the physical and emotional struggles of contending with COVID-19 at home.
No ‘cookie-cutter’ approach
The speed with which the pandemic progressed caught public health systems off guard, but now, “it is essential to put into place the infrastructure to care for the physical and mental health needs of patients at home because most are in the community and many, if not most, still aren’t receiving sufficient support at home,” said Dr. Stebbins.
said Gary LeRoy, MD, a family physician in Dayton, Ohio. He emphasized that there is “no cookie-cutter formula” for home care, because every patient’s situation is different.
“I begin by having a detailed conversation with each patient to ascertain whether their home environment is safe and to paint a picture of their circumstances,” Dr. LeRoy, who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.
Dr. LeRoy suggested questions that constitute “not just a ‘medical’ checklist but a ‘whole life’ checklist.”
- Do you have access to food, water, medications, sanitation/cleaning supplies, a thermometer, and other necessities? If not, who might assist in providing those?
- Do you need help with activities of daily living and self-care?
- Who else lives in your household? Do they have signs and symptoms of the virus? Have they been tested?
- Do you have enough physical space between you and other household members?
- Do you have children? How are they being cared for?
- What type of work do you do? What are the implications for your employment if you are unable to work for an extended period?
- Do you have an emotional, social, and spiritual support system (e.g., family, friends, community, church)?
- Do you have concerns I haven’t mentioned?
Patients’ responses will inform the management plan and determine what medical and social resources are needed, he said.
Daily check-in
Dr. Stebbins said the nurse case manager from her insurance company called her daily after she came home from the hospital. She was told that a public health nurse would also call, but no one from the health department called for days – a situation she hopes has improved.
One way or another, she said, “health care providers [or their staff] should check in with patients daily, either telephonically or via video.” She noted that video is superior, because “someone who isn’t a family member needs to put eyes on a patient and might be able to detect warning signs that a family member without healthcare training might not notice.”
Dr. LeRoy, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, said that, given his time constraints, a nurse or medical assistant in his practice conducts the daily check-ins and notifies him if the patient has fever or other symptoms.
“Under ordinary circumstances, when a patient comes to see me for some type of medical condition, I get to meet the patient, consider what might be going on, then order a test, wait for the results, and suggest a treatment plan. But these are anything but ordinary circumstances,” said Matthew Exline, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
“That traditional structure broke down with COVID-19, when we may have test results without even seeing the patient. And without this interaction, it is harder to know as a physician what course of action to take,” he said in an interview.
Once a diagnosis has been made, the physician has at least some data to help guide next steps, even if there has been no prior meeting with the patient.
For example, a positive test raises a host of issues, not the least of which is the risk of spreading the infection to other household members and questions about whether to go the hospital. Moreover, for patients, positive tests can have serious ramifications.
“Severe shortness of breath at rest is not typical of the flu, nor is loss of taste or smell,” said Dr. Exline. Practitioners must educate patients and families about specific symptoms of COVID-19, including shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell, and gastrointestinal or neurologic symptoms, and when to seek emergency care.
Dr. LeRoy suggests buying a pulse oximeter to gauge blood oxygen levels and pulse rate. Together with a thermometer, a portable blood pressure monitor, and, if indicated, a blood glucose monitor, these devices provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of vital signs.
Dr. LeRoy also educates patients and their families about when to seek medical attention.
Dr. Stebbins takes a similar approach. “Family members are part of, not apart from, the care of patients with COVID-19, and it’s our responsibility as healthcare providers to consider them in the patient’s care plan.”
Keeping family safe
Beyond care, family members need a plan to keep themselves healthy, too.
“A patient with COVID-19 at home should self-quarantine as much as possible to keep other family members safe, if they continue to live in the same house,” Dr. Exline said.
Ideally, uninfected family members should stay with relatives or friends. When that’s not possible, everyone in the household should wear a mask, be vigilant about hand washing, and wipe down all surfaces – including doorknobs, light switches, faucet handles, cellphones, and utensils – regularly with bleach or an alcohol solution.
Caregivers should also minimize the amount of time they are exposed to the patient.
“Set food, water, and medication on the night table and leave the room rather than spending hours at the bedside, since limiting exposure to viral load reduces the chances of contagion,” said Dr. Exline.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers guidance for household members caring for COVID-19 patients at home. It provides tips on how to help patients follow the doctor’s instructions and ways to ensure adequate hydration and rest, among others.
Patients with COVID-19 who live alone face more formidable challenges.
Dr. LeRoy says physicians can help patients by educating themselves about available social services in their community so they can provide appropriate referrals and connections. Such initiatives can include meal programs, friendly visit and financial assistance programs, as well as childcare and home health agencies.
He noted that Aunt Bertha, a social care network, provides a guide to social services throughout the United States. Additional resources are available on USA.gov.
Comfort and support
Patients with COVID-19 need to be as comfortable and as supported as possible, both physically and emotionally.
“While I was sick, my dogs curled up next to me and didn’t leave my side, and they were my saving grace. There’s not enough to be said about emotional support,” Dr. Stebbins said.
Although important, emotional support is not enough. For patients with respiratory disorders, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, or pneumonia, their subjective symptoms of shortness of breath, air hunger, or cough may improve with supplemental oxygen at home. Other measures include repositioning of the patient to lessen the body weight over the lungs or the use of lung percussion, Leroy said.
He added that improvement may also come from drainage of sputum from the airway passages, the use of agents to liquefy thick sputum (mucolytics), or aerosolized bronchodilator medications.
However, Dr. LeRoy cautioned, “one remedy does not work for everyone – an individual can improve gradually by using these home support interventions, or their respiratory status can deteriorate rapidly despite all these interventions.”
For this reason, he says patients should consult their personal physician to determine which, if any, of these home treatments would be best for their particular situation.
Patients who need emotional support, psychotherapy, or psychotropic medications may find teletherapy helpful. Guidance for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers regarding the treatment of COVID-19 patients via teletherapy can be found on the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers websites.
Pharmacists can also help ensure patient safety, Dr. Stebbins said.
If a patient has not picked up their usual medications, Dr. Stebbins said, “they may need a check-in call. Some may be ill and alone and may need encouragement to seek medical attention, and some may have no means of getting to the pharmacy and may need medications delivered.”
A home healthcare agency may also be helpful for homebound patients. David Bersson, director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, N.J., has arranged in-home caregivers for patients with COVID-19.
The amount of care that professional caregivers provide can range from several hours per week to full-time, depending on the patient’s needs and budget, and can include companionship, Mr. Bersson said in an interview.
Because patient and caregiver safety are paramount, caregivers are thoroughly trained in protection and decontamination procedures and are regularly tested for COVID-19 prior to being sent into a client’s home.
Health insurance companies do not cover this service, Mr. Bersson noted, but the VetAssist program covers home care for veterans and their spouses who meet income requirements.
Caregiving and companionship are both vital pieces of the at-home care puzzle. “It was the virtual emotional support I got from friends, family, coworkers, and healthcare professionals that meant so much to me, and I know they played an important part in my recovery,” Dr. Stebbins said.
Dr. LeRoy agreed, noting that he calls patients, even if they only have mild symptoms and his nurse has already spoken to them. “The call doesn’t take much time – maybe just a 5-minute conversation – but it makes patients aware that I care.”
Dr. Stebbins, Dr. Exline, and Dr. LeRoy report no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Bersson is the director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, New Jersey.
This story first appeared on Medscape.com.