Clinical Psychiatry News

Feelings of chronic emptiness and self-injury have been identified as two key risk factors for suicide attempts (SAs) in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), a new cross-sectional, nationally representative study suggests.

The findings also show lifetime and past-year SAs are common among patients with BPD, even when excluding self-injurious behaviors.

The results suggest that in addition to asking patients about self-harm during suicide risk screenings and assessments, clinicians should query them about “longstanding” feelings of emptiness, study investigator Carlos M. Grilo, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

Although related, chronic emptiness “is distinct and goes beyond feelings of sadness, loneliness, and hopelessness,” explained Dr. Grilo. Patients describe this emptiness as “a feeling that their life has no meaning or any real purpose,” he said.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Filling a research gap

While BPD and other psychiatric disorders are associated with suicide, the authors noted there is a “dearth of epidemiological research” examining the link between BPD and suicide.

Criteria for BPD diagnosis requires any five of the following criteria: relationships, affective instability, abandonment fear, anger, identity disturbance, emptiness, disassociation/paranoia, self-injurious behavior, and impulsivity, along with social-occupation dysfunction.

To determine SA risk with specific BPD diagnostic criteria, the investigators examined data on 36,309 individuals who participated in the third wave of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III), conducted from 2012 to 2013.

During computer-assisted, face-to-face interviews, study participants answered questions based on the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5 (AUDADIS-5) of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

This structured interview assesses a range of DSM-5–defined psychiatric disorders and their criteria. In addition to BPD, the AUDADIS-5 generates diagnoses for mood disorders, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, antisocial personality disorder, schizotypal disorder, and conduct disorder.

During the interviews, respondents were asked if they had ever attempted suicide. For those who had, interviewers recorded the total number of lifetime attempts.

Participants also answered questions about childhood maltreatment including physical neglect, emotional neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse by parents or caregivers and other adverse events occurring before the age of 18.
 

Childhood trauma common

Patients with BPD frequently report a history of childhood trauma, noted Dr. Grilo, adding that such trauma is associated with self-harm and suicide attempts. Sociodemographic information, including age, sex, and ethnicity/race, education level, and income, was also gathered.

Investigators examined data on suicide attempts using relatively stringent coding that required serious dysfunction in at least five BPD criteria.

Using this definition, investigators found the lifetime SA prevalence in patients with BPD was 30.4%, and 3.2% for past-year SAs. This compared with a rate of 3.7% for lifetime SAs and 0.2% for past-year SAs in those without a BPD diagnosis.

The authors examined SA rates using diagnostic codes in the NESARC-III that required seriously impaired function in only 1 or 2 BPD criteria. Rates were higher using the 5-criteria definition.

When the researchers excluded the BPD criterion of self-injurious behavior, the prevalence was 28.1% for lifetime and 3.0% for past-year SAs among the BPD group, with corresponding rates of 3.8% and 0.2% in those without a BPD diagnosis.

It’s important to look at this, said Dr. Grilo, as some patients with BPD who engage in self-harm have suicidal intent while others don’t.

“We tested whether BPD had heightened risk for suicide attempts if we eliminated the self-injurious criterion and we found that heightened risk was still there,” he explained.

Looking at individual criteria for BPD, a model that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, other psychiatric disorders, age at BPD onset, and history of childhood adverse events uncovered two criteria that were significantly associated with increased odds of SAs.

One was emptiness. For lifetime suicide attempts, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.14) and for past-year attempts, the aOR was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.08-3.66).

The second was self-injurious behavior. For lifetime attempts, the aOR was 24.28 (95% CI, 16.83-32.03) and for past-year attempts, the aOR was 19.32 (95% CI, 5.22-71.58).

In a model in which all BPD-specific criteria were entered while excluding self-injurious behavior, the aORs for emptiness were 1.66 (95% CI, 1.23-2.24) for lifetime suicide attempts and 2.45 (95% CI, 1.18-5.08) for past year attempts.

Unlike another recent study that included more than 700 treatment-seeking patients with BPD who were followed for 10 years, the current study did not show significant associations with SAs for two other BPD criteria – identity disturbance and frantic attempts to avoid abandonment.

Dr. Grilo explained this might be because the earlier study included treatment-seeking patients instead of community cases, or because of differences in assessment interviews or other factors.
 

‘Compelling evidence’

“Our epidemiological sample has much broader generalizability and fewer potential confounds than the clinical treatment-seeking sample,” said Dr. Grilo.

However, he noted that the two studies “converge strongly and provide compelling evidence that BPD is associated with substantially heightened risk for suicide attempts over the lifetime.”

The two studies “also converge in finding that the presence of symptoms such as repeated self-harm and feelings of chronic emptiness are also associated with risk for suicide attempts.”

The new findings highlight the need to ask potentially at-risk patients about feelings of emptiness as well as self-injurious behaviors. Clinicians could, for example, ask: “Have you often felt like your life had no purpose or meaning?” or “Have you often felt empty inside?”

Limitations of the study include reliance on retrospective self-reports and use of lay interviewers, although these interviewers were trained and had an average of 5 years of experience conducting health-related surveys.

Although the study included a representative sample of U.S. adults, the sample did not include groups known to have high rates of suicide and self-harm behaviors, such as institutionalized, incarcerated, or homeless individuals.

In addition, the study did not evaluate severity and duration of BPD, although the authors noted they did adjust for age at BPD onset, this did not alter the findings.
 

Often misdiagnosed

Commenting on the study, John M. Oldham, MD, Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and past-president, American Psychiatric Association, and an expert on BPD, had high praise for the research.

BPD is often misdiagnosed, Dr. Oldham said in an interview. Many patients seek help from primary care doctors who may label the symptoms as an anxiety disorder or a mood disorder, he said.

Although medications can help treat some BPD symptoms, “the primary, core evidence-based treatment for BPD is psychotherapy,” said Dr. Oldham, who some years ago helped develop evidence-based practice guidelines for BPD.

“It’s a clear and very well-designed study, and I don’t see any major limitations or problems with it,” he said. “The authors kept their focus rigorously on their goals and they used really careful methodology.”

He noted the “huge” numbers of patients included in the data and the relatively large percentage of men (43.7%).

“There’s a general belief that it’s mostly females who have BPD, but that’s not true; it’s females who come to treatment,” said Dr. Oldham.

Requiring that all five criteria lead to seriously impaired functioning “is a much more rigorous diagnostic methodology” than requiring only one or two criteria to lead to such impairment, said Dr. Oldham. “This is really important” and makes it “a much stronger study.”

The finding that self-harm behavior was linked to suicide attempts isn’t that surprising as this association has been well documented, but the finding that chronic emptiness is also predictive of future suicide attempts “is news,” said Dr. Oldham.

“We have not paid enough attention to this criterion in the clinical world or in the research world.”

Dr. Oldham said one patient with BPD gave him an ideal metaphor for emptiness. “She said it’s like there’s just nobody home. Think of it as an empty house that may look fine on the outside but you go inside and nobody lives there; there’s no furniture; no favorite things; no photos; no possessions.”

The authors have “important messages we need to pay attention to, and the main one is to explore this sense of chronic ‘nobody home’ emptiness,” said Dr. Oldham.

Dr. Grilo has reported receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health; serving as a consultant for Sunovion and Weight Watchers; receiving honoraria for lectures, continuing medical education activities, and presentations at scientific conferences; and receiving royalties from Guilford Press and Taylor & Francis, all outside the submitted work.

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

Feelings of chronic emptiness and self-injury have been identified as two key risk factors for suicide attempts (SAs) in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), a new cross-sectional, nationally representative study suggests.

The findings also show lifetime and past-year SAs are common among patients with BPD, even when excluding self-injurious behaviors.

The results suggest that in addition to asking patients about self-harm during suicide risk screenings and assessments, clinicians should query them about “longstanding” feelings of emptiness, study investigator Carlos M. Grilo, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

Although related, chronic emptiness “is distinct and goes beyond feelings of sadness, loneliness, and hopelessness,” explained Dr. Grilo. Patients describe this emptiness as “a feeling that their life has no meaning or any real purpose,” he said.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Filling a research gap

While BPD and other psychiatric disorders are associated with suicide, the authors noted there is a “dearth of epidemiological research” examining the link between BPD and suicide.

Criteria for BPD diagnosis requires any five of the following criteria: relationships, affective instability, abandonment fear, anger, identity disturbance, emptiness, disassociation/paranoia, self-injurious behavior, and impulsivity, along with social-occupation dysfunction.

To determine SA risk with specific BPD diagnostic criteria, the investigators examined data on 36,309 individuals who participated in the third wave of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III), conducted from 2012 to 2013.

During computer-assisted, face-to-face interviews, study participants answered questions based on the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5 (AUDADIS-5) of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

This structured interview assesses a range of DSM-5–defined psychiatric disorders and their criteria. In addition to BPD, the AUDADIS-5 generates diagnoses for mood disorders, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, antisocial personality disorder, schizotypal disorder, and conduct disorder.

During the interviews, respondents were asked if they had ever attempted suicide. For those who had, interviewers recorded the total number of lifetime attempts.

Participants also answered questions about childhood maltreatment including physical neglect, emotional neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse by parents or caregivers and other adverse events occurring before the age of 18.
 

Childhood trauma common

Patients with BPD frequently report a history of childhood trauma, noted Dr. Grilo, adding that such trauma is associated with self-harm and suicide attempts. Sociodemographic information, including age, sex, and ethnicity/race, education level, and income, was also gathered.

Investigators examined data on suicide attempts using relatively stringent coding that required serious dysfunction in at least five BPD criteria.

Using this definition, investigators found the lifetime SA prevalence in patients with BPD was 30.4%, and 3.2% for past-year SAs. This compared with a rate of 3.7% for lifetime SAs and 0.2% for past-year SAs in those without a BPD diagnosis.

The authors examined SA rates using diagnostic codes in the NESARC-III that required seriously impaired function in only 1 or 2 BPD criteria. Rates were higher using the 5-criteria definition.

When the researchers excluded the BPD criterion of self-injurious behavior, the prevalence was 28.1% for lifetime and 3.0% for past-year SAs among the BPD group, with corresponding rates of 3.8% and 0.2% in those without a BPD diagnosis.

It’s important to look at this, said Dr. Grilo, as some patients with BPD who engage in self-harm have suicidal intent while others don’t.

“We tested whether BPD had heightened risk for suicide attempts if we eliminated the self-injurious criterion and we found that heightened risk was still there,” he explained.

Looking at individual criteria for BPD, a model that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, other psychiatric disorders, age at BPD onset, and history of childhood adverse events uncovered two criteria that were significantly associated with increased odds of SAs.

One was emptiness. For lifetime suicide attempts, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.14) and for past-year attempts, the aOR was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.08-3.66).

The second was self-injurious behavior. For lifetime attempts, the aOR was 24.28 (95% CI, 16.83-32.03) and for past-year attempts, the aOR was 19.32 (95% CI, 5.22-71.58).

In a model in which all BPD-specific criteria were entered while excluding self-injurious behavior, the aORs for emptiness were 1.66 (95% CI, 1.23-2.24) for lifetime suicide attempts and 2.45 (95% CI, 1.18-5.08) for past year attempts.

Unlike another recent study that included more than 700 treatment-seeking patients with BPD who were followed for 10 years, the current study did not show significant associations with SAs for two other BPD criteria – identity disturbance and frantic attempts to avoid abandonment.

Dr. Grilo explained this might be because the earlier study included treatment-seeking patients instead of community cases, or because of differences in assessment interviews or other factors.
 

‘Compelling evidence’

“Our epidemiological sample has much broader generalizability and fewer potential confounds than the clinical treatment-seeking sample,” said Dr. Grilo.

However, he noted that the two studies “converge strongly and provide compelling evidence that BPD is associated with substantially heightened risk for suicide attempts over the lifetime.”

The two studies “also converge in finding that the presence of symptoms such as repeated self-harm and feelings of chronic emptiness are also associated with risk for suicide attempts.”

The new findings highlight the need to ask potentially at-risk patients about feelings of emptiness as well as self-injurious behaviors. Clinicians could, for example, ask: “Have you often felt like your life had no purpose or meaning?” or “Have you often felt empty inside?”

Limitations of the study include reliance on retrospective self-reports and use of lay interviewers, although these interviewers were trained and had an average of 5 years of experience conducting health-related surveys.

Although the study included a representative sample of U.S. adults, the sample did not include groups known to have high rates of suicide and self-harm behaviors, such as institutionalized, incarcerated, or homeless individuals.

In addition, the study did not evaluate severity and duration of BPD, although the authors noted they did adjust for age at BPD onset, this did not alter the findings.
 

Often misdiagnosed

Commenting on the study, John M. Oldham, MD, Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and past-president, American Psychiatric Association, and an expert on BPD, had high praise for the research.

BPD is often misdiagnosed, Dr. Oldham said in an interview. Many patients seek help from primary care doctors who may label the symptoms as an anxiety disorder or a mood disorder, he said.

Although medications can help treat some BPD symptoms, “the primary, core evidence-based treatment for BPD is psychotherapy,” said Dr. Oldham, who some years ago helped develop evidence-based practice guidelines for BPD.

“It’s a clear and very well-designed study, and I don’t see any major limitations or problems with it,” he said. “The authors kept their focus rigorously on their goals and they used really careful methodology.”

He noted the “huge” numbers of patients included in the data and the relatively large percentage of men (43.7%).

“There’s a general belief that it’s mostly females who have BPD, but that’s not true; it’s females who come to treatment,” said Dr. Oldham.

Requiring that all five criteria lead to seriously impaired functioning “is a much more rigorous diagnostic methodology” than requiring only one or two criteria to lead to such impairment, said Dr. Oldham. “This is really important” and makes it “a much stronger study.”

The finding that self-harm behavior was linked to suicide attempts isn’t that surprising as this association has been well documented, but the finding that chronic emptiness is also predictive of future suicide attempts “is news,” said Dr. Oldham.

“We have not paid enough attention to this criterion in the clinical world or in the research world.”

Dr. Oldham said one patient with BPD gave him an ideal metaphor for emptiness. “She said it’s like there’s just nobody home. Think of it as an empty house that may look fine on the outside but you go inside and nobody lives there; there’s no furniture; no favorite things; no photos; no possessions.”

The authors have “important messages we need to pay attention to, and the main one is to explore this sense of chronic ‘nobody home’ emptiness,” said Dr. Oldham.

Dr. Grilo has reported receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health; serving as a consultant for Sunovion and Weight Watchers; receiving honoraria for lectures, continuing medical education activities, and presentations at scientific conferences; and receiving royalties from Guilford Press and Taylor & Francis, all outside the submitted work.

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

Feelings of chronic emptiness and self-injury have been identified as two key risk factors for suicide attempts (SAs) in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), a new cross-sectional, nationally representative study suggests.

The findings also show lifetime and past-year SAs are common among patients with BPD, even when excluding self-injurious behaviors.

The results suggest that in addition to asking patients about self-harm during suicide risk screenings and assessments, clinicians should query them about “longstanding” feelings of emptiness, study investigator Carlos M. Grilo, PhD, professor of psychiatry and psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

Although related, chronic emptiness “is distinct and goes beyond feelings of sadness, loneliness, and hopelessness,” explained Dr. Grilo. Patients describe this emptiness as “a feeling that their life has no meaning or any real purpose,” he said.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Filling a research gap

While BPD and other psychiatric disorders are associated with suicide, the authors noted there is a “dearth of epidemiological research” examining the link between BPD and suicide.

Criteria for BPD diagnosis requires any five of the following criteria: relationships, affective instability, abandonment fear, anger, identity disturbance, emptiness, disassociation/paranoia, self-injurious behavior, and impulsivity, along with social-occupation dysfunction.

To determine SA risk with specific BPD diagnostic criteria, the investigators examined data on 36,309 individuals who participated in the third wave of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III), conducted from 2012 to 2013.

During computer-assisted, face-to-face interviews, study participants answered questions based on the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5 (AUDADIS-5) of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

This structured interview assesses a range of DSM-5–defined psychiatric disorders and their criteria. In addition to BPD, the AUDADIS-5 generates diagnoses for mood disorders, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, antisocial personality disorder, schizotypal disorder, and conduct disorder.

During the interviews, respondents were asked if they had ever attempted suicide. For those who had, interviewers recorded the total number of lifetime attempts.

Participants also answered questions about childhood maltreatment including physical neglect, emotional neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse by parents or caregivers and other adverse events occurring before the age of 18.
 

Childhood trauma common

Patients with BPD frequently report a history of childhood trauma, noted Dr. Grilo, adding that such trauma is associated with self-harm and suicide attempts. Sociodemographic information, including age, sex, and ethnicity/race, education level, and income, was also gathered.

Investigators examined data on suicide attempts using relatively stringent coding that required serious dysfunction in at least five BPD criteria.

Using this definition, investigators found the lifetime SA prevalence in patients with BPD was 30.4%, and 3.2% for past-year SAs. This compared with a rate of 3.7% for lifetime SAs and 0.2% for past-year SAs in those without a BPD diagnosis.

The authors examined SA rates using diagnostic codes in the NESARC-III that required seriously impaired function in only 1 or 2 BPD criteria. Rates were higher using the 5-criteria definition.

When the researchers excluded the BPD criterion of self-injurious behavior, the prevalence was 28.1% for lifetime and 3.0% for past-year SAs among the BPD group, with corresponding rates of 3.8% and 0.2% in those without a BPD diagnosis.

It’s important to look at this, said Dr. Grilo, as some patients with BPD who engage in self-harm have suicidal intent while others don’t.

“We tested whether BPD had heightened risk for suicide attempts if we eliminated the self-injurious criterion and we found that heightened risk was still there,” he explained.

Looking at individual criteria for BPD, a model that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, other psychiatric disorders, age at BPD onset, and history of childhood adverse events uncovered two criteria that were significantly associated with increased odds of SAs.

One was emptiness. For lifetime suicide attempts, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.14) and for past-year attempts, the aOR was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.08-3.66).

The second was self-injurious behavior. For lifetime attempts, the aOR was 24.28 (95% CI, 16.83-32.03) and for past-year attempts, the aOR was 19.32 (95% CI, 5.22-71.58).

In a model in which all BPD-specific criteria were entered while excluding self-injurious behavior, the aORs for emptiness were 1.66 (95% CI, 1.23-2.24) for lifetime suicide attempts and 2.45 (95% CI, 1.18-5.08) for past year attempts.

Unlike another recent study that included more than 700 treatment-seeking patients with BPD who were followed for 10 years, the current study did not show significant associations with SAs for two other BPD criteria – identity disturbance and frantic attempts to avoid abandonment.

Dr. Grilo explained this might be because the earlier study included treatment-seeking patients instead of community cases, or because of differences in assessment interviews or other factors.
 

‘Compelling evidence’

“Our epidemiological sample has much broader generalizability and fewer potential confounds than the clinical treatment-seeking sample,” said Dr. Grilo.

However, he noted that the two studies “converge strongly and provide compelling evidence that BPD is associated with substantially heightened risk for suicide attempts over the lifetime.”

The two studies “also converge in finding that the presence of symptoms such as repeated self-harm and feelings of chronic emptiness are also associated with risk for suicide attempts.”

The new findings highlight the need to ask potentially at-risk patients about feelings of emptiness as well as self-injurious behaviors. Clinicians could, for example, ask: “Have you often felt like your life had no purpose or meaning?” or “Have you often felt empty inside?”

Limitations of the study include reliance on retrospective self-reports and use of lay interviewers, although these interviewers were trained and had an average of 5 years of experience conducting health-related surveys.

Although the study included a representative sample of U.S. adults, the sample did not include groups known to have high rates of suicide and self-harm behaviors, such as institutionalized, incarcerated, or homeless individuals.

In addition, the study did not evaluate severity and duration of BPD, although the authors noted they did adjust for age at BPD onset, this did not alter the findings.
 

Often misdiagnosed

Commenting on the study, John M. Oldham, MD, Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and past-president, American Psychiatric Association, and an expert on BPD, had high praise for the research.

BPD is often misdiagnosed, Dr. Oldham said in an interview. Many patients seek help from primary care doctors who may label the symptoms as an anxiety disorder or a mood disorder, he said.

Although medications can help treat some BPD symptoms, “the primary, core evidence-based treatment for BPD is psychotherapy,” said Dr. Oldham, who some years ago helped develop evidence-based practice guidelines for BPD.

“It’s a clear and very well-designed study, and I don’t see any major limitations or problems with it,” he said. “The authors kept their focus rigorously on their goals and they used really careful methodology.”

He noted the “huge” numbers of patients included in the data and the relatively large percentage of men (43.7%).

“There’s a general belief that it’s mostly females who have BPD, but that’s not true; it’s females who come to treatment,” said Dr. Oldham.

Requiring that all five criteria lead to seriously impaired functioning “is a much more rigorous diagnostic methodology” than requiring only one or two criteria to lead to such impairment, said Dr. Oldham. “This is really important” and makes it “a much stronger study.”

The finding that self-harm behavior was linked to suicide attempts isn’t that surprising as this association has been well documented, but the finding that chronic emptiness is also predictive of future suicide attempts “is news,” said Dr. Oldham.

“We have not paid enough attention to this criterion in the clinical world or in the research world.”

Dr. Oldham said one patient with BPD gave him an ideal metaphor for emptiness. “She said it’s like there’s just nobody home. Think of it as an empty house that may look fine on the outside but you go inside and nobody lives there; there’s no furniture; no favorite things; no photos; no possessions.”

The authors have “important messages we need to pay attention to, and the main one is to explore this sense of chronic ‘nobody home’ emptiness,” said Dr. Oldham.

Dr. Grilo has reported receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health; serving as a consultant for Sunovion and Weight Watchers; receiving honoraria for lectures, continuing medical education activities, and presentations at scientific conferences; and receiving royalties from Guilford Press and Taylor & Francis, all outside the submitted work.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest guidance on what fully vaccinated people can do safely – including not socially distancing and not wearing a mask indoors or outdoors unless other regulations require it – has been widely misinterpreted and caused confusion, two infectious disease experts said at a briefing on May 20 hosted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

The CDC did not ‘’lift” the mask mandate, but rather supplied guidance for those who are fully vaccinated. However, many questions and gray areas remain, and the experts addressed those. ‘’The CDC guidance is really directed at people who are fully vaccinated and who we know are likely to have a really solid response to the vaccine,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an IDSA board member.

That message was largely lost, said Dr. Marrazzo and Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer of public health for Seattle and King County, Washington, and also an IDSA board member. Dr. Duchin said many people mistakenly regarded the new guidance as a message that the pandemic is over.

Among their practical tips on how to interpret the guidance:
 

To mask or not?

To make the decision, people need to think about not only the numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals in their community but the local rates of disease, the experts said.  And they need to know that the CDC guidance doesn’t apply if regulations by federal or state authorities or businesses and workplace are in conflict.

Deciding on mask use sometimes depends on where you are going. What about going into grocery stores or large bin stores without a mask? “If you are fully vaccinated and have no other conditions that compromise your immune system, and the rates of COVID are relatively low where you live, and the vaccination rates are high, I would be 100% fine” without a mask, Dr. Marrazzo said. But it’s important to think of all these factors in calculating your risk.

“I’m still wearing a mask when I go anywhere in public,” she said, citing vaccination rates that have not yet reached 50% in her area.

If that rate reached 80%, the typical percentage talked about for herd immunity, and new cases were low, Dr. Marrazzo said she might shed the mask.

The CDC also continues to recommend masks on mass transit for all.

One population that also must be considered, and who must evaluate their risk, even if vaccinated, are the immunocompromised, Dr. Marrazzo said. While people think of the immunocompromised as those with HIV or organ transplants, the numbers are actually much larger.

“A study a couple of years ago indicated up to 3% of Americans may actually have been told by their physician they have some of level of being immunocompromised,” she said. Among the examples are those who are on dialysis, on chemotherapy, or those taking any of the medications that modify the immune system.

“Millions of people fit this bill, and we have [very] little data on whether the vaccine works in them. We think it does,” Dr. Marrazzo said.

Still, she said, it’s a reason for these people to be cautious. For some other vaccines, the dose is modified for those who are immunocompromised. What’s not known yet is whether additional doses of the COVID vaccines might boost protection for those who are immunocompromised.

Many people, even after vaccination, may choose to keep wearing a mask especially in indoor, crowded settings, Dr. Duchin said. “We need to expect, accept, and respect continued mask wearing by anyone at any time.”

In most outdoor settings, he said, “I think masks are probably not necessary, vaccinated or not, regardless of age.” One exception: close face-to-face contact, such as in certain sports.
 

How to protect toddlers and infants

With masks not practical or recommended for infants and toddlers under 2 years old, Dr. Marrazzo said adults should remember that ‘’those very little kids don’t do poorly at all [even if infected], although there is not a ton of data.”

Adults should still treat young children as vulnerable, especially newborns. Adults not yet vaccinated should wear a mask when around them, she said.
 

J & J vaccine recipients

With less ‘’real world” data on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, should those who got it think of themselves in a different risk group than those who got Moderna or Pfizer and adjust their behavior accordingly? 

“The J&J vaccine, based on everything we know, does provide a great deal of protection,” Dr. Marrazzo said. ‘’We don’t know as much about prevention of transmission in the asymptomatic cases in the J&J.”

Most of that data, she said, is from the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna. “I think it’s an important area to study and learn about.” But all three vaccines, overall, provide a high level of protection, she said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest guidance on what fully vaccinated people can do safely – including not socially distancing and not wearing a mask indoors or outdoors unless other regulations require it – has been widely misinterpreted and caused confusion, two infectious disease experts said at a briefing on May 20 hosted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

The CDC did not ‘’lift” the mask mandate, but rather supplied guidance for those who are fully vaccinated. However, many questions and gray areas remain, and the experts addressed those. ‘’The CDC guidance is really directed at people who are fully vaccinated and who we know are likely to have a really solid response to the vaccine,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an IDSA board member.

That message was largely lost, said Dr. Marrazzo and Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer of public health for Seattle and King County, Washington, and also an IDSA board member. Dr. Duchin said many people mistakenly regarded the new guidance as a message that the pandemic is over.

Among their practical tips on how to interpret the guidance:
 

To mask or not?

To make the decision, people need to think about not only the numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals in their community but the local rates of disease, the experts said.  And they need to know that the CDC guidance doesn’t apply if regulations by federal or state authorities or businesses and workplace are in conflict.

Deciding on mask use sometimes depends on where you are going. What about going into grocery stores or large bin stores without a mask? “If you are fully vaccinated and have no other conditions that compromise your immune system, and the rates of COVID are relatively low where you live, and the vaccination rates are high, I would be 100% fine” without a mask, Dr. Marrazzo said. But it’s important to think of all these factors in calculating your risk.

“I’m still wearing a mask when I go anywhere in public,” she said, citing vaccination rates that have not yet reached 50% in her area.

If that rate reached 80%, the typical percentage talked about for herd immunity, and new cases were low, Dr. Marrazzo said she might shed the mask.

The CDC also continues to recommend masks on mass transit for all.

One population that also must be considered, and who must evaluate their risk, even if vaccinated, are the immunocompromised, Dr. Marrazzo said. While people think of the immunocompromised as those with HIV or organ transplants, the numbers are actually much larger.

“A study a couple of years ago indicated up to 3% of Americans may actually have been told by their physician they have some of level of being immunocompromised,” she said. Among the examples are those who are on dialysis, on chemotherapy, or those taking any of the medications that modify the immune system.

“Millions of people fit this bill, and we have [very] little data on whether the vaccine works in them. We think it does,” Dr. Marrazzo said.

Still, she said, it’s a reason for these people to be cautious. For some other vaccines, the dose is modified for those who are immunocompromised. What’s not known yet is whether additional doses of the COVID vaccines might boost protection for those who are immunocompromised.

Many people, even after vaccination, may choose to keep wearing a mask especially in indoor, crowded settings, Dr. Duchin said. “We need to expect, accept, and respect continued mask wearing by anyone at any time.”

In most outdoor settings, he said, “I think masks are probably not necessary, vaccinated or not, regardless of age.” One exception: close face-to-face contact, such as in certain sports.
 

How to protect toddlers and infants

With masks not practical or recommended for infants and toddlers under 2 years old, Dr. Marrazzo said adults should remember that ‘’those very little kids don’t do poorly at all [even if infected], although there is not a ton of data.”

Adults should still treat young children as vulnerable, especially newborns. Adults not yet vaccinated should wear a mask when around them, she said.
 

J & J vaccine recipients

With less ‘’real world” data on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, should those who got it think of themselves in a different risk group than those who got Moderna or Pfizer and adjust their behavior accordingly? 

“The J&J vaccine, based on everything we know, does provide a great deal of protection,” Dr. Marrazzo said. ‘’We don’t know as much about prevention of transmission in the asymptomatic cases in the J&J.”

Most of that data, she said, is from the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna. “I think it’s an important area to study and learn about.” But all three vaccines, overall, provide a high level of protection, she said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest guidance on what fully vaccinated people can do safely – including not socially distancing and not wearing a mask indoors or outdoors unless other regulations require it – has been widely misinterpreted and caused confusion, two infectious disease experts said at a briefing on May 20 hosted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

The CDC did not ‘’lift” the mask mandate, but rather supplied guidance for those who are fully vaccinated. However, many questions and gray areas remain, and the experts addressed those. ‘’The CDC guidance is really directed at people who are fully vaccinated and who we know are likely to have a really solid response to the vaccine,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an IDSA board member.

That message was largely lost, said Dr. Marrazzo and Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer of public health for Seattle and King County, Washington, and also an IDSA board member. Dr. Duchin said many people mistakenly regarded the new guidance as a message that the pandemic is over.

Among their practical tips on how to interpret the guidance:
 

To mask or not?

To make the decision, people need to think about not only the numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals in their community but the local rates of disease, the experts said.  And they need to know that the CDC guidance doesn’t apply if regulations by federal or state authorities or businesses and workplace are in conflict.

Deciding on mask use sometimes depends on where you are going. What about going into grocery stores or large bin stores without a mask? “If you are fully vaccinated and have no other conditions that compromise your immune system, and the rates of COVID are relatively low where you live, and the vaccination rates are high, I would be 100% fine” without a mask, Dr. Marrazzo said. But it’s important to think of all these factors in calculating your risk.

“I’m still wearing a mask when I go anywhere in public,” she said, citing vaccination rates that have not yet reached 50% in her area.

If that rate reached 80%, the typical percentage talked about for herd immunity, and new cases were low, Dr. Marrazzo said she might shed the mask.

The CDC also continues to recommend masks on mass transit for all.

One population that also must be considered, and who must evaluate their risk, even if vaccinated, are the immunocompromised, Dr. Marrazzo said. While people think of the immunocompromised as those with HIV or organ transplants, the numbers are actually much larger.

“A study a couple of years ago indicated up to 3% of Americans may actually have been told by their physician they have some of level of being immunocompromised,” she said. Among the examples are those who are on dialysis, on chemotherapy, or those taking any of the medications that modify the immune system.

“Millions of people fit this bill, and we have [very] little data on whether the vaccine works in them. We think it does,” Dr. Marrazzo said.

Still, she said, it’s a reason for these people to be cautious. For some other vaccines, the dose is modified for those who are immunocompromised. What’s not known yet is whether additional doses of the COVID vaccines might boost protection for those who are immunocompromised.

Many people, even after vaccination, may choose to keep wearing a mask especially in indoor, crowded settings, Dr. Duchin said. “We need to expect, accept, and respect continued mask wearing by anyone at any time.”

In most outdoor settings, he said, “I think masks are probably not necessary, vaccinated or not, regardless of age.” One exception: close face-to-face contact, such as in certain sports.
 

How to protect toddlers and infants

With masks not practical or recommended for infants and toddlers under 2 years old, Dr. Marrazzo said adults should remember that ‘’those very little kids don’t do poorly at all [even if infected], although there is not a ton of data.”

Adults should still treat young children as vulnerable, especially newborns. Adults not yet vaccinated should wear a mask when around them, she said.
 

J & J vaccine recipients

With less ‘’real world” data on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, should those who got it think of themselves in a different risk group than those who got Moderna or Pfizer and adjust their behavior accordingly? 

“The J&J vaccine, based on everything we know, does provide a great deal of protection,” Dr. Marrazzo said. ‘’We don’t know as much about prevention of transmission in the asymptomatic cases in the J&J.”

Most of that data, she said, is from the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna. “I think it’s an important area to study and learn about.” But all three vaccines, overall, provide a high level of protection, she said.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.

The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.

The award amounts will vary by state.

The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.

The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.

‘A huge step forward’

The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.

“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.” 

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.

The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.

The award amounts will vary by state.

The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.

The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.

‘A huge step forward’

The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.

“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.” 

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.

The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.

The award amounts will vary by state.

The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.

The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.

‘A huge step forward’

The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.

“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.” 

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

Sigmund Freud said, “Out of your vulnerabilities will come greatest strength.” What exactly did Dr. Freud mean by this?

Many aspects of mental health treatment include cognitive restructuring, behavioral changes, emotion processing, and setting boundaries. These are all critical aspects of treatment, but what about kindness and compassion?

We often forget that kindness requires us to be vulnerable and take a risk at times. Being kind to others is not always easy, and it is not always an automatic reaction. Vulnerability often involves risk, but the outcomes often outweigh fear.

Dr. Freud was highlighting that being kind, open, and honest will often result in strong character and resilience. In turn, it will help others. Psychology and psychiatry have proved time and time again that empathy, compassion, and kindness have numerous benefits for mental and physical health for both the giver and the receiver.

From a biological perspective, we know that acts of kindness signal the brain to release serotonin and dopamine, known as “feel good transmitters,” and endorphins, which in turn lessen pain, depression, and anxiety. According to Waguih W. Ishak, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles,¹ in addition to boosting oxytocin and dopamine, being kind can increase serotonin, a neurotransmitter that helps regulate mood. Kindness and compassion have been shown to release oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” which increases self-esteem, trust, connection, and optimism. Oxytocin also reduces blood pressure and has been dubbed the “cardioprotective” hormone. According to Kelli Harding, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University in New York,² kindness can extend the lifespan. Research from Emory University in Atlanta has shown that, when an individual is kind to another, the brain’s reward centers light up – resulting in a “helper’s high.” Thus, kindness is self-reinforcing.³

Kindness leads to a greater sense of connection to others and a lessening in feelings of isolation. Small acts of kindness build up compassion in oneself. Research indicates that kindness doesn’t just positively affect the giver and receiver but can also benefit onlookers. An article in Psychology Today,⁴ suggests that those who witness acts of kindness are also more likely to “pay it forward,” resulting in a domino effect. Along these same lines, altruistic people, specifically those who engage in charitable donations, expressed higher levels of overall happiness according to a 2010 Harvard Business School survey.⁵

“You can’t pour from an empty cup” is a trendy quote making its way around social media. Before we can be kind and compassionate to others, we must first be kind and compassionate to ourselves. In today’s world, productivity and pressure-filled environments consume us daily. We often find ourselves skipping meals, forgetting to connect with loved ones, missing breaks, and even neglecting our sleep. It is virtually impossible to care for others when we are depleted ourselves. Sometimes not prioritizing ourselves can result in collateral damage. We may become short-tempered, irritable, moody, and overwhelmed. At this point kindness, compassion, and empathy toward others are likely to be absent. Once we replenish ourselves, by taking time off, indulging in a nice meal, exercising, we are more likely to respond as opposed to react, ask others about themselves, and engage in overall positive interactions throughout our day. Kindness is best fostered by being kind to ourselves to sustain our own well-being and by being kind to others in order to maintain the cycle. For clinicians who have been pushed to respond to various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-care has never been more important.

COVID-19 has been difficult for everyone, particularly the elderly and vulnerable populations. However, kindness has proved to be an overwhelming response as many businesses and individuals have taken to volunteering time and resources for those in need. Even big corporations have chipped in. For example, Lyft and Uber – in a partnership with the White House – are now offering free rides to vaccine sites, and several local businesses have donated personal protective equipment to hospitals and assisted living facilities.

Kindness and empathy are ever present in the field of mental health, medicine, and substance use treatment. The very act of caring for another involves kindness. In medicine, empathy has been defined as “an emotional experience between an observer and a subject in which the observer, based on visual and auditory cues, identifies and transiently experiences the subject’s emotional state.”⁶

As mental health professionals, we receive empathy training early on in our schooling – increasingly so over the last decade. Research has indicated that trusting relationships between clinicians and patients result in optimal care. Evidence-based communication styles are being widely implemented. This entails using nonjudgmental language, open-ended questions, and active listening skills, for example. In addition, the mental health professionals have our conscious and unconscious judgments. If empathy training is provided, we can learn to acknowledge our biases and mitigate them. Lastly, empathy training has been proven to assist with destigmatization, increase in treatment seeking, and overall better outcomes.

Substance use treatment, which often focuses on cognition and behavior changing, boundaries, and family dynamics, also requires support and kindness. Although it is not an empirically based “treatment,” Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has used kindness for decades.

Step 12 of AA’s 12-step program, which was developed by two people with alcohol use disorder in 1935 in Akron, Ohio, is as follows: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.”

Once AA members are on solid ground with their sobriety, they are urged to help others in their recovery. This process provides many benefits. When individuals are concerned about someone else, they are less focused on themselves. This helps the individuals in recovery to decrease their rumination and “get out of themselves.” It also allows for the AA member to be kind and helpful to an individual who is suffering, thereby expressing kindness, compassion, and empathy. This act of “paying it forward” produces a domino effect that has withstood the test of time as evidenced by the ever-growing fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Several small acts of kindness can help us as clinicians and our patients:

1. Practice self-care.

2. Take a half day off from your practice.

3. Give staff a half day off.

4. Call a family member or friend and ask them how they are doing. Then engage in active listening and refrain from giving advice.

5. Donate to a homeless shelter or volunteer your time at a charity.

6. Give a stranger a compliment.

7. Surprise someone with a small gift.

8. Send a loved one a letter instead of a text.

9. Pick up litter.

10. Acknowledge family and friends who gave you extra support during the pandemic.

11. Take baked goods to your office.

12. Help a neighbor with groceries.

13. Leave a generous tip.

14. Play soft music in your office.

In conclusion, kindness, empathy, and compassion are vital concepts that are not just fluffy theories. They have vast mental, physical, and social benefits for us and our patients.
 

References

1. Cedars-Sinai staff. The Science of Kindness. 2019 Feb 13. Cedars-Sinai blog.

2. Harding K. The Rabbit Effect: Live Longer, Happier, and Healthier with the Groundbreaking Science of Kindness. Atria Books, 2019.

3. Ritvo E. BeKindr. Momosa Publishing, 2017.

4. Svoboda E. “Pay it Forward.” Psychology Today. Last reviewed 2016 Jun 9.

5. Aknin LB et al. “Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal.” Harvard Business School. Working Paper 11-038. 2010.

6. Hirsch EM. AMA J Ethics. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(6):423-7.

Dr. Haji is a licensed clinical psychologist specializing in psychodiagnostic assessment, forensic assessment, dual diagnosis, serious and persistent mental illness, depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and substance abuse treatment. She practices in Miami and has no conflicts of interest.

Sigmund Freud said, “Out of your vulnerabilities will come greatest strength.” What exactly did Dr. Freud mean by this?

Many aspects of mental health treatment include cognitive restructuring, behavioral changes, emotion processing, and setting boundaries. These are all critical aspects of treatment, but what about kindness and compassion?

We often forget that kindness requires us to be vulnerable and take a risk at times. Being kind to others is not always easy, and it is not always an automatic reaction. Vulnerability often involves risk, but the outcomes often outweigh fear.

Dr. Freud was highlighting that being kind, open, and honest will often result in strong character and resilience. In turn, it will help others. Psychology and psychiatry have proved time and time again that empathy, compassion, and kindness have numerous benefits for mental and physical health for both the giver and the receiver.

From a biological perspective, we know that acts of kindness signal the brain to release serotonin and dopamine, known as “feel good transmitters,” and endorphins, which in turn lessen pain, depression, and anxiety. According to Waguih W. Ishak, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles,¹ in addition to boosting oxytocin and dopamine, being kind can increase serotonin, a neurotransmitter that helps regulate mood. Kindness and compassion have been shown to release oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” which increases self-esteem, trust, connection, and optimism. Oxytocin also reduces blood pressure and has been dubbed the “cardioprotective” hormone. According to Kelli Harding, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University in New York,² kindness can extend the lifespan. Research from Emory University in Atlanta has shown that, when an individual is kind to another, the brain’s reward centers light up – resulting in a “helper’s high.” Thus, kindness is self-reinforcing.³

Kindness leads to a greater sense of connection to others and a lessening in feelings of isolation. Small acts of kindness build up compassion in oneself. Research indicates that kindness doesn’t just positively affect the giver and receiver but can also benefit onlookers. An article in Psychology Today,⁴ suggests that those who witness acts of kindness are also more likely to “pay it forward,” resulting in a domino effect. Along these same lines, altruistic people, specifically those who engage in charitable donations, expressed higher levels of overall happiness according to a 2010 Harvard Business School survey.⁵

“You can’t pour from an empty cup” is a trendy quote making its way around social media. Before we can be kind and compassionate to others, we must first be kind and compassionate to ourselves. In today’s world, productivity and pressure-filled environments consume us daily. We often find ourselves skipping meals, forgetting to connect with loved ones, missing breaks, and even neglecting our sleep. It is virtually impossible to care for others when we are depleted ourselves. Sometimes not prioritizing ourselves can result in collateral damage. We may become short-tempered, irritable, moody, and overwhelmed. At this point kindness, compassion, and empathy toward others are likely to be absent. Once we replenish ourselves, by taking time off, indulging in a nice meal, exercising, we are more likely to respond as opposed to react, ask others about themselves, and engage in overall positive interactions throughout our day. Kindness is best fostered by being kind to ourselves to sustain our own well-being and by being kind to others in order to maintain the cycle. For clinicians who have been pushed to respond to various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-care has never been more important.

COVID-19 has been difficult for everyone, particularly the elderly and vulnerable populations. However, kindness has proved to be an overwhelming response as many businesses and individuals have taken to volunteering time and resources for those in need. Even big corporations have chipped in. For example, Lyft and Uber – in a partnership with the White House – are now offering free rides to vaccine sites, and several local businesses have donated personal protective equipment to hospitals and assisted living facilities.

Kindness and empathy are ever present in the field of mental health, medicine, and substance use treatment. The very act of caring for another involves kindness. In medicine, empathy has been defined as “an emotional experience between an observer and a subject in which the observer, based on visual and auditory cues, identifies and transiently experiences the subject’s emotional state.”⁶

As mental health professionals, we receive empathy training early on in our schooling – increasingly so over the last decade. Research has indicated that trusting relationships between clinicians and patients result in optimal care. Evidence-based communication styles are being widely implemented. This entails using nonjudgmental language, open-ended questions, and active listening skills, for example. In addition, the mental health professionals have our conscious and unconscious judgments. If empathy training is provided, we can learn to acknowledge our biases and mitigate them. Lastly, empathy training has been proven to assist with destigmatization, increase in treatment seeking, and overall better outcomes.

Substance use treatment, which often focuses on cognition and behavior changing, boundaries, and family dynamics, also requires support and kindness. Although it is not an empirically based “treatment,” Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has used kindness for decades.

Step 12 of AA’s 12-step program, which was developed by two people with alcohol use disorder in 1935 in Akron, Ohio, is as follows: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.”

Once AA members are on solid ground with their sobriety, they are urged to help others in their recovery. This process provides many benefits. When individuals are concerned about someone else, they are less focused on themselves. This helps the individuals in recovery to decrease their rumination and “get out of themselves.” It also allows for the AA member to be kind and helpful to an individual who is suffering, thereby expressing kindness, compassion, and empathy. This act of “paying it forward” produces a domino effect that has withstood the test of time as evidenced by the ever-growing fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Several small acts of kindness can help us as clinicians and our patients:

1. Practice self-care.

2. Take a half day off from your practice.

3. Give staff a half day off.

4. Call a family member or friend and ask them how they are doing. Then engage in active listening and refrain from giving advice.

5. Donate to a homeless shelter or volunteer your time at a charity.

6. Give a stranger a compliment.

7. Surprise someone with a small gift.

8. Send a loved one a letter instead of a text.

9. Pick up litter.

10. Acknowledge family and friends who gave you extra support during the pandemic.

11. Take baked goods to your office.

12. Help a neighbor with groceries.

13. Leave a generous tip.

14. Play soft music in your office.

In conclusion, kindness, empathy, and compassion are vital concepts that are not just fluffy theories. They have vast mental, physical, and social benefits for us and our patients.
 

References

1. Cedars-Sinai staff. The Science of Kindness. 2019 Feb 13. Cedars-Sinai blog.

2. Harding K. The Rabbit Effect: Live Longer, Happier, and Healthier with the Groundbreaking Science of Kindness. Atria Books, 2019.

3. Ritvo E. BeKindr. Momosa Publishing, 2017.

4. Svoboda E. “Pay it Forward.” Psychology Today. Last reviewed 2016 Jun 9.

5. Aknin LB et al. “Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal.” Harvard Business School. Working Paper 11-038. 2010.

6. Hirsch EM. AMA J Ethics. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(6):423-7.

Dr. Haji is a licensed clinical psychologist specializing in psychodiagnostic assessment, forensic assessment, dual diagnosis, serious and persistent mental illness, depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and substance abuse treatment. She practices in Miami and has no conflicts of interest.

Sigmund Freud said, “Out of your vulnerabilities will come greatest strength.” What exactly did Dr. Freud mean by this?

Many aspects of mental health treatment include cognitive restructuring, behavioral changes, emotion processing, and setting boundaries. These are all critical aspects of treatment, but what about kindness and compassion?

We often forget that kindness requires us to be vulnerable and take a risk at times. Being kind to others is not always easy, and it is not always an automatic reaction. Vulnerability often involves risk, but the outcomes often outweigh fear.

Dr. Freud was highlighting that being kind, open, and honest will often result in strong character and resilience. In turn, it will help others. Psychology and psychiatry have proved time and time again that empathy, compassion, and kindness have numerous benefits for mental and physical health for both the giver and the receiver.

From a biological perspective, we know that acts of kindness signal the brain to release serotonin and dopamine, known as “feel good transmitters,” and endorphins, which in turn lessen pain, depression, and anxiety. According to Waguih W. Ishak, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles,¹ in addition to boosting oxytocin and dopamine, being kind can increase serotonin, a neurotransmitter that helps regulate mood. Kindness and compassion have been shown to release oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” which increases self-esteem, trust, connection, and optimism. Oxytocin also reduces blood pressure and has been dubbed the “cardioprotective” hormone. According to Kelli Harding, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University in New York,² kindness can extend the lifespan. Research from Emory University in Atlanta has shown that, when an individual is kind to another, the brain’s reward centers light up – resulting in a “helper’s high.” Thus, kindness is self-reinforcing.³

Kindness leads to a greater sense of connection to others and a lessening in feelings of isolation. Small acts of kindness build up compassion in oneself. Research indicates that kindness doesn’t just positively affect the giver and receiver but can also benefit onlookers. An article in Psychology Today,⁴ suggests that those who witness acts of kindness are also more likely to “pay it forward,” resulting in a domino effect. Along these same lines, altruistic people, specifically those who engage in charitable donations, expressed higher levels of overall happiness according to a 2010 Harvard Business School survey.⁵

“You can’t pour from an empty cup” is a trendy quote making its way around social media. Before we can be kind and compassionate to others, we must first be kind and compassionate to ourselves. In today’s world, productivity and pressure-filled environments consume us daily. We often find ourselves skipping meals, forgetting to connect with loved ones, missing breaks, and even neglecting our sleep. It is virtually impossible to care for others when we are depleted ourselves. Sometimes not prioritizing ourselves can result in collateral damage. We may become short-tempered, irritable, moody, and overwhelmed. At this point kindness, compassion, and empathy toward others are likely to be absent. Once we replenish ourselves, by taking time off, indulging in a nice meal, exercising, we are more likely to respond as opposed to react, ask others about themselves, and engage in overall positive interactions throughout our day. Kindness is best fostered by being kind to ourselves to sustain our own well-being and by being kind to others in order to maintain the cycle. For clinicians who have been pushed to respond to various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-care has never been more important.

COVID-19 has been difficult for everyone, particularly the elderly and vulnerable populations. However, kindness has proved to be an overwhelming response as many businesses and individuals have taken to volunteering time and resources for those in need. Even big corporations have chipped in. For example, Lyft and Uber – in a partnership with the White House – are now offering free rides to vaccine sites, and several local businesses have donated personal protective equipment to hospitals and assisted living facilities.

Kindness and empathy are ever present in the field of mental health, medicine, and substance use treatment. The very act of caring for another involves kindness. In medicine, empathy has been defined as “an emotional experience between an observer and a subject in which the observer, based on visual and auditory cues, identifies and transiently experiences the subject’s emotional state.”⁶

As mental health professionals, we receive empathy training early on in our schooling – increasingly so over the last decade. Research has indicated that trusting relationships between clinicians and patients result in optimal care. Evidence-based communication styles are being widely implemented. This entails using nonjudgmental language, open-ended questions, and active listening skills, for example. In addition, the mental health professionals have our conscious and unconscious judgments. If empathy training is provided, we can learn to acknowledge our biases and mitigate them. Lastly, empathy training has been proven to assist with destigmatization, increase in treatment seeking, and overall better outcomes.

Substance use treatment, which often focuses on cognition and behavior changing, boundaries, and family dynamics, also requires support and kindness. Although it is not an empirically based “treatment,” Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has used kindness for decades.

Step 12 of AA’s 12-step program, which was developed by two people with alcohol use disorder in 1935 in Akron, Ohio, is as follows: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.”

Once AA members are on solid ground with their sobriety, they are urged to help others in their recovery. This process provides many benefits. When individuals are concerned about someone else, they are less focused on themselves. This helps the individuals in recovery to decrease their rumination and “get out of themselves.” It also allows for the AA member to be kind and helpful to an individual who is suffering, thereby expressing kindness, compassion, and empathy. This act of “paying it forward” produces a domino effect that has withstood the test of time as evidenced by the ever-growing fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Several small acts of kindness can help us as clinicians and our patients:

1. Practice self-care.

2. Take a half day off from your practice.

3. Give staff a half day off.

4. Call a family member or friend and ask them how they are doing. Then engage in active listening and refrain from giving advice.

5. Donate to a homeless shelter or volunteer your time at a charity.

6. Give a stranger a compliment.

7. Surprise someone with a small gift.

8. Send a loved one a letter instead of a text.

9. Pick up litter.

10. Acknowledge family and friends who gave you extra support during the pandemic.

11. Take baked goods to your office.

12. Help a neighbor with groceries.

13. Leave a generous tip.

14. Play soft music in your office.

In conclusion, kindness, empathy, and compassion are vital concepts that are not just fluffy theories. They have vast mental, physical, and social benefits for us and our patients.
 

References

1. Cedars-Sinai staff. The Science of Kindness. 2019 Feb 13. Cedars-Sinai blog.

2. Harding K. The Rabbit Effect: Live Longer, Happier, and Healthier with the Groundbreaking Science of Kindness. Atria Books, 2019.

3. Ritvo E. BeKindr. Momosa Publishing, 2017.

4. Svoboda E. “Pay it Forward.” Psychology Today. Last reviewed 2016 Jun 9.

5. Aknin LB et al. “Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal.” Harvard Business School. Working Paper 11-038. 2010.

6. Hirsch EM. AMA J Ethics. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(6):423-7.

Dr. Haji is a licensed clinical psychologist specializing in psychodiagnostic assessment, forensic assessment, dual diagnosis, serious and persistent mental illness, depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and substance abuse treatment. She practices in Miami and has no conflicts of interest.

A 75-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease has had three falls over the past 4 weeks. He has been compliant with his Parkinson’s treatment. Which of the following options would most help decrease his fall risk?

A. Vitamin D supplementation

B. Vitamin B₁₂ supplementation

C. Calcium supplementation

D. Tai chi

Falls are a catastrophic problem in our elderly population, and are especially common in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

There has been recent evidence that vitamin D supplementation is not helpful in preventing falls in most community-dwelling older adults. Bolland and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 81 randomized, controlled trials and found that vitamin D supplementation does not prevent fractures or falls.¹ They found no difference or benefit in high-dose versus low-dose vitamin D supplementation.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against vitamin D supplementation for the purpose of preventing falls in community-dwelling adults over the age of 65.² The same USPSTF report recommends exercise intervention, as having the strongest evidence for fall prevention in community-dwelling adults age 65 or older who are at risk for falls.
 

The benefits of tai chi

Tai chi with it’s emphasis on balance, strength training as well as stress reduction is an excellent option for older adults.

Lui and colleagues performed a meta-analyses of five randomized, controlled trials (355 patients) of tai chi in patients with Parkinson disease.³ Tai chi significantly decreased fall rates (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.74; P = .001) and significantly improved balance and functional mobility (P < .001) in people with Parkinson disease, compared with no training.

Tai chi can also help prevent falls in a more general population of elderly patients. Lomas-Vega and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 10 high-quality studies that met inclusion criteria evaluating tai chi for fall prevention.⁴ Fall risk was reduced over short-term follow-up (incident rate ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.70) and a small protective effect was seen over long-term follow-up (IRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98).

Pearl: Consider tai chi in your elderly patients with fall risk to increase their balance and reduce risks of falls.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Bolland MJ et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(11):847.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319(16):1696.

3. Liu HH et al. Parkinsons Dis. 2019 Feb 21;2019:9626934

4. Lomas-Vega R et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(9):2037.

A 75-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease has had three falls over the past 4 weeks. He has been compliant with his Parkinson’s treatment. Which of the following options would most help decrease his fall risk?

A. Vitamin D supplementation

B. Vitamin B₁₂ supplementation

C. Calcium supplementation

D. Tai chi

Falls are a catastrophic problem in our elderly population, and are especially common in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

There has been recent evidence that vitamin D supplementation is not helpful in preventing falls in most community-dwelling older adults. Bolland and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 81 randomized, controlled trials and found that vitamin D supplementation does not prevent fractures or falls.¹ They found no difference or benefit in high-dose versus low-dose vitamin D supplementation.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against vitamin D supplementation for the purpose of preventing falls in community-dwelling adults over the age of 65.² The same USPSTF report recommends exercise intervention, as having the strongest evidence for fall prevention in community-dwelling adults age 65 or older who are at risk for falls.
 

The benefits of tai chi

Tai chi with it’s emphasis on balance, strength training as well as stress reduction is an excellent option for older adults.

Lui and colleagues performed a meta-analyses of five randomized, controlled trials (355 patients) of tai chi in patients with Parkinson disease.³ Tai chi significantly decreased fall rates (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.74; P = .001) and significantly improved balance and functional mobility (P < .001) in people with Parkinson disease, compared with no training.

Tai chi can also help prevent falls in a more general population of elderly patients. Lomas-Vega and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 10 high-quality studies that met inclusion criteria evaluating tai chi for fall prevention.⁴ Fall risk was reduced over short-term follow-up (incident rate ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.70) and a small protective effect was seen over long-term follow-up (IRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98).

Pearl: Consider tai chi in your elderly patients with fall risk to increase their balance and reduce risks of falls.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Bolland MJ et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(11):847.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319(16):1696.

3. Liu HH et al. Parkinsons Dis. 2019 Feb 21;2019:9626934

4. Lomas-Vega R et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(9):2037.

A 75-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease has had three falls over the past 4 weeks. He has been compliant with his Parkinson’s treatment. Which of the following options would most help decrease his fall risk?

A. Vitamin D supplementation

B. Vitamin B₁₂ supplementation

C. Calcium supplementation

D. Tai chi

Falls are a catastrophic problem in our elderly population, and are especially common in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

There has been recent evidence that vitamin D supplementation is not helpful in preventing falls in most community-dwelling older adults. Bolland and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 81 randomized, controlled trials and found that vitamin D supplementation does not prevent fractures or falls.¹ They found no difference or benefit in high-dose versus low-dose vitamin D supplementation.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against vitamin D supplementation for the purpose of preventing falls in community-dwelling adults over the age of 65.² The same USPSTF report recommends exercise intervention, as having the strongest evidence for fall prevention in community-dwelling adults age 65 or older who are at risk for falls.
 

The benefits of tai chi

Tai chi with it’s emphasis on balance, strength training as well as stress reduction is an excellent option for older adults.

Lui and colleagues performed a meta-analyses of five randomized, controlled trials (355 patients) of tai chi in patients with Parkinson disease.³ Tai chi significantly decreased fall rates (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.74; P = .001) and significantly improved balance and functional mobility (P < .001) in people with Parkinson disease, compared with no training.

Tai chi can also help prevent falls in a more general population of elderly patients. Lomas-Vega and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 10 high-quality studies that met inclusion criteria evaluating tai chi for fall prevention.⁴ Fall risk was reduced over short-term follow-up (incident rate ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.70) and a small protective effect was seen over long-term follow-up (IRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98).

Pearl: Consider tai chi in your elderly patients with fall risk to increase their balance and reduce risks of falls.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Bolland MJ et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(11):847.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319(16):1696.

3. Liu HH et al. Parkinsons Dis. 2019 Feb 21;2019:9626934

4. Lomas-Vega R et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(9):2037.

Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.

In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.

“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.

“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.

The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.

The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.

The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).

Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.

The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.

“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
 

Giving patients a voice

In an invited commentary, Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of NIDA, note that the “voice of the patient” has been missing from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.

The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.

The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.

“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.

In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.

This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.

In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.

“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.

“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.

The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.

The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.

The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).

Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.

The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.

“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
 

Giving patients a voice

In an invited commentary, Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of NIDA, note that the “voice of the patient” has been missing from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.

The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.

The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.

“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.

In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.

This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.

In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.

“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.

“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.

The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.

The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.

The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).

Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.

The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.

“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
 

Giving patients a voice

In an invited commentary, Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of NIDA, note that the “voice of the patient” has been missing from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.

The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.

The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.

“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.

In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.

This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a large study make a strong case for offering long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Investigators found that among patients who switched to LAIs, mortality was lower and there were fewer suicide attempts in comparison with patients who continued taking the corresponding oral antipsychotic (OAP).

In addition, switching to an LAI antipsychotic within the first 2 years of OAP cut the risk for suicide death by 47%.

“With newly diagnosed schizophrenia, more active consideration of LAIs in this stage for better long-term outcomes (i.e., mortality and suicide risk) should be encouraged, particularly for those who have already exhibited poor adherence attitudes,” Cheng-yi Huang, MD, Bali Psychiatric Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Powerful incentive to switch

Using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, the investigators identified patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia who received OAPs from 2002 to 2017.

Within this cohort, they defined the LAI group as patients who switched to LAIs and were prescribed LAIs at least four times within 1 year. The LAI group was propensity matched to patients who continued receiving OAPs of the same compounds. There were 2,614 patients in each group (median age, 30 years).

During the 16-year follow-up period, compared with patients who continued taking the OAP, those who switched to the LAI had a 34% lower risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81), a 37% lower risk for natural-cause mortality (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and a 28% lower risk for suicide attempts (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93).

The risk for suicide mortality was 47% lower for patients who switched to LAIs within the first 2 years of having begun taking the OAP (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.92).

A recent study from Canada found that the suicide rate among patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was more than 20 times higher than that of the general population.

“Clinically, most psychiatrists use LAIs with a conservative attitude, and the reasons for this attitude are generally not well supported by current scientific evidence,” Dr. Huang and colleagues note in their article.

Dr. Huang said the study provides a powerful incentive to begin treatment with LAIs for patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

“Because this study compared depot versus the same oral compound, as soon as patients show response and tolerability to the OAP, they will benefit much more when switching to LAI of the same compound,” Dr. Huang told this news organization.
 

‘Remarkably underutilized’

Commenting on the study for an interview, William Carpenter Jr., MD, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said this report is “very important and in a high-quality journal.”

“LAIs have been remarkably underutilized in the U.S. and not considered as main line and initial treatment. All of this is unfortunate attitude, not science,” Dr. Carpenter said.

There is now evidence that the field is shifting toward LAIs as frontline treatment, “at least conceptually and by research leaders,” he noted.

“In this report, the health and suicide information is new, extremely important, and robust. This report should alert clinicians to possible advantage of LAI in suicide prevention,” Dr. Carpenter added.

Also commenting for this news organization, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said the findings provide “another very robust argument for LAIs.”

“The decrease in all-cause mortality is really interesting,” said Dr. Sullivan, “and it would be interesting to find out whether some of this reflects improved metabolic states” with LAIs versus OAPs.

The finding that people who switched to LAIs within 2 years were at much lower risk for suicide and other mortality represents a “powerful argument for switching within 2 years,” Dr. Sullivan said.

However, in current clinical practice, clinicians often don’t suggest LAIs until patients have suffered repeated acute episodes of illness after not taking their oral antipsychotics. Such episodes have an impact on the individual and on their nervous system, Dr. Sullivan explained.

“That’s really undesirable. We know from other data that the more episodes someone has, the harder it is to get the illness symptoms under control,” he noted.

“We really ought to be thinking preventively about approaches that will decrease the risk of recurrence, and the evidence in this study is pretty compelling that the LAI was a significant intervention that decreased the risks. Thinking about LAIs as a preventive measure is a message that hasn’t gotten out to the practice community yet,” Dr. Sullivan added.

The study was supported by the Bali Psychiatric Center, Taiwan, through a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Dr. Huang, Dr. Carpenter, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a large study make a strong case for offering long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Investigators found that among patients who switched to LAIs, mortality was lower and there were fewer suicide attempts in comparison with patients who continued taking the corresponding oral antipsychotic (OAP).

In addition, switching to an LAI antipsychotic within the first 2 years of OAP cut the risk for suicide death by 47%.

“With newly diagnosed schizophrenia, more active consideration of LAIs in this stage for better long-term outcomes (i.e., mortality and suicide risk) should be encouraged, particularly for those who have already exhibited poor adherence attitudes,” Cheng-yi Huang, MD, Bali Psychiatric Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Powerful incentive to switch

Using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, the investigators identified patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia who received OAPs from 2002 to 2017.

Within this cohort, they defined the LAI group as patients who switched to LAIs and were prescribed LAIs at least four times within 1 year. The LAI group was propensity matched to patients who continued receiving OAPs of the same compounds. There were 2,614 patients in each group (median age, 30 years).

During the 16-year follow-up period, compared with patients who continued taking the OAP, those who switched to the LAI had a 34% lower risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81), a 37% lower risk for natural-cause mortality (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and a 28% lower risk for suicide attempts (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93).

The risk for suicide mortality was 47% lower for patients who switched to LAIs within the first 2 years of having begun taking the OAP (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.92).

A recent study from Canada found that the suicide rate among patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was more than 20 times higher than that of the general population.

“Clinically, most psychiatrists use LAIs with a conservative attitude, and the reasons for this attitude are generally not well supported by current scientific evidence,” Dr. Huang and colleagues note in their article.

Dr. Huang said the study provides a powerful incentive to begin treatment with LAIs for patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

“Because this study compared depot versus the same oral compound, as soon as patients show response and tolerability to the OAP, they will benefit much more when switching to LAI of the same compound,” Dr. Huang told this news organization.
 

‘Remarkably underutilized’

Commenting on the study for an interview, William Carpenter Jr., MD, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said this report is “very important and in a high-quality journal.”

“LAIs have been remarkably underutilized in the U.S. and not considered as main line and initial treatment. All of this is unfortunate attitude, not science,” Dr. Carpenter said.

There is now evidence that the field is shifting toward LAIs as frontline treatment, “at least conceptually and by research leaders,” he noted.

“In this report, the health and suicide information is new, extremely important, and robust. This report should alert clinicians to possible advantage of LAI in suicide prevention,” Dr. Carpenter added.

Also commenting for this news organization, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said the findings provide “another very robust argument for LAIs.”

“The decrease in all-cause mortality is really interesting,” said Dr. Sullivan, “and it would be interesting to find out whether some of this reflects improved metabolic states” with LAIs versus OAPs.

The finding that people who switched to LAIs within 2 years were at much lower risk for suicide and other mortality represents a “powerful argument for switching within 2 years,” Dr. Sullivan said.

However, in current clinical practice, clinicians often don’t suggest LAIs until patients have suffered repeated acute episodes of illness after not taking their oral antipsychotics. Such episodes have an impact on the individual and on their nervous system, Dr. Sullivan explained.

“That’s really undesirable. We know from other data that the more episodes someone has, the harder it is to get the illness symptoms under control,” he noted.

“We really ought to be thinking preventively about approaches that will decrease the risk of recurrence, and the evidence in this study is pretty compelling that the LAI was a significant intervention that decreased the risks. Thinking about LAIs as a preventive measure is a message that hasn’t gotten out to the practice community yet,” Dr. Sullivan added.

The study was supported by the Bali Psychiatric Center, Taiwan, through a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Dr. Huang, Dr. Carpenter, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a large study make a strong case for offering long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Investigators found that among patients who switched to LAIs, mortality was lower and there were fewer suicide attempts in comparison with patients who continued taking the corresponding oral antipsychotic (OAP).

In addition, switching to an LAI antipsychotic within the first 2 years of OAP cut the risk for suicide death by 47%.

“With newly diagnosed schizophrenia, more active consideration of LAIs in this stage for better long-term outcomes (i.e., mortality and suicide risk) should be encouraged, particularly for those who have already exhibited poor adherence attitudes,” Cheng-yi Huang, MD, Bali Psychiatric Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Powerful incentive to switch

Using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, the investigators identified patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia who received OAPs from 2002 to 2017.

Within this cohort, they defined the LAI group as patients who switched to LAIs and were prescribed LAIs at least four times within 1 year. The LAI group was propensity matched to patients who continued receiving OAPs of the same compounds. There were 2,614 patients in each group (median age, 30 years).

During the 16-year follow-up period, compared with patients who continued taking the OAP, those who switched to the LAI had a 34% lower risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81), a 37% lower risk for natural-cause mortality (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and a 28% lower risk for suicide attempts (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93).

The risk for suicide mortality was 47% lower for patients who switched to LAIs within the first 2 years of having begun taking the OAP (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.92).

A recent study from Canada found that the suicide rate among patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was more than 20 times higher than that of the general population.

“Clinically, most psychiatrists use LAIs with a conservative attitude, and the reasons for this attitude are generally not well supported by current scientific evidence,” Dr. Huang and colleagues note in their article.

Dr. Huang said the study provides a powerful incentive to begin treatment with LAIs for patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

“Because this study compared depot versus the same oral compound, as soon as patients show response and tolerability to the OAP, they will benefit much more when switching to LAI of the same compound,” Dr. Huang told this news organization.
 

‘Remarkably underutilized’

Commenting on the study for an interview, William Carpenter Jr., MD, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said this report is “very important and in a high-quality journal.”

“LAIs have been remarkably underutilized in the U.S. and not considered as main line and initial treatment. All of this is unfortunate attitude, not science,” Dr. Carpenter said.

There is now evidence that the field is shifting toward LAIs as frontline treatment, “at least conceptually and by research leaders,” he noted.

“In this report, the health and suicide information is new, extremely important, and robust. This report should alert clinicians to possible advantage of LAI in suicide prevention,” Dr. Carpenter added.

Also commenting for this news organization, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said the findings provide “another very robust argument for LAIs.”

“The decrease in all-cause mortality is really interesting,” said Dr. Sullivan, “and it would be interesting to find out whether some of this reflects improved metabolic states” with LAIs versus OAPs.

The finding that people who switched to LAIs within 2 years were at much lower risk for suicide and other mortality represents a “powerful argument for switching within 2 years,” Dr. Sullivan said.

However, in current clinical practice, clinicians often don’t suggest LAIs until patients have suffered repeated acute episodes of illness after not taking their oral antipsychotics. Such episodes have an impact on the individual and on their nervous system, Dr. Sullivan explained.

“That’s really undesirable. We know from other data that the more episodes someone has, the harder it is to get the illness symptoms under control,” he noted.

“We really ought to be thinking preventively about approaches that will decrease the risk of recurrence, and the evidence in this study is pretty compelling that the LAI was a significant intervention that decreased the risks. Thinking about LAIs as a preventive measure is a message that hasn’t gotten out to the practice community yet,” Dr. Sullivan added.

The study was supported by the Bali Psychiatric Center, Taiwan, through a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Dr. Huang, Dr. Carpenter, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When the Biden administration announced who would serve on its COVID-19 task force, some asked why a mental health expert had not been included. I have a broader question: In light of the magnitude of the pandemic’s fallout, why doesn’t the administration create a mental health post parallel to the surgeon general?

I have been making the case for creation of a high-level mental health post for quite some time. In fact, in the late 1970s, toward the end of then-President Jimmy Carter’s term, I wrote and talked about the need for a special cabinet post of mental health. At the time I realized that, besides chronic mental disorders, the amount of mental distress people experienced from a myriad of life issues leading to anxiety, depression, even posttraumatic stress disorder (although not labeled as such then), needed focused and informed leadership.

Before the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported that depression was the leading cause of disability worldwide. In the prepandemic United States, mental and substance use disorders were the top cause of disability among younger people.

We’ve lost almost 600,000 people to COVID-19, and people have been unable to grieve properly. More than 2 million women have left the labor force to care for children and sick family members. As we continue to learn about the mental health–related devastation wrought by SARS-CoV-2 – particularly long-haul COVID-19 – it’s time to dust off my proposal, update it, and implement it.
 

Building on a good decision

Back in 2017, President Trump appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, to a new post officially called “assistant secretary for mental health and substance use” and unofficially called the “mental health czar.” This was a groundbreaking step, because Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, is known for developing innovative approaches to addressing the opioid crisis in her home state of Rhode Island. She resigned from her post on Jan. 7, 2021, citing her concerns about the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

As of this writing, President Biden has nominated psychologist Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, PhD, who is commissioner of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, as mental health czar. I’m glad to see that the new administration wants a new czar, but I would prefer to see a more expansive role for a mental health professional at the federal level. The reason is because the COVID-19 fallout is requiring us to offer a greater array of mental health and substance use disorder services than ever before.
 

Processing the current crisis

Americans managed to recover emotionally from the ravages of death and dying from World War II; we lived through the “atomic age” of mutual destruction, sometimes calling it the age of anxiety. But nothing has come close to the overwhelming devastation that COVID-19 has brought to the world – and to this country.

A recent Government Accountability Office report shows 38% of U.S. adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression from April 2020 through February 2021. That was up from 11% from January to June 2019, the report said, citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, the report cites data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showing that opioid deaths were 25%-50% higher during the pandemic than a year earlier.

My sense is that people generally have opened up regarding their emotional problems in a freer manner, thus allowing us to speak about and accept mental health problems as part of our human reality – just as we accept physical disorders and search for treatment and care.

In terms of talk therapy, I still believe that the “thinking” therapies, that is, cognitive therapies that involved getting a new perspective on problems, are most effective in dealing with the myriad of emotional issues people experience as well as those that have arisen because of COVID-19, and the tremendous fear of severe illness and death that the virus can bring. Besides anxiety, depression, and fear, the psychological toll of a fractured lifestyle, coupled with social isolation, will lead many into a variety of PTSD-related conditions. Many of those conditions, including PTSD, might lift when COVID-19 is controlled, but the time frame for resolution is far from clear and will vary, depending on each person. National leadership, as well as therapists, need to be ready to work with the many mental health problems COVID-19 will leave in its wake.

Therapeutically, as we develop our cognitive approaches to the problems this pandemic has brought, whether affecting people with no past psychiatric history or those with a previous or ongoing problems, we are in a unique position ourselves to offer even more support based on our own experiences during the pandemic. Our patients have seen us wear masks and work remotely, and just as we know about their suffering, they know we have been affected as well. These shared experiences with patients can allow us to express even greater empathy and offer even greater support – which I believe enhances the cognitive process and adds more humanism to the therapeutic process.

The therapists I’ve talked with believe that sharing coping skills – even generally sharing anxieties – can be very therapeutic. They compared these exchanges to what is done in support or educational groups.

As a psychiatrist who has been treating patients using cognitive-behavioral therapy – the thinking therapy – for more than 40 years, I agree that sharing our experiences in this worldwide pandemic with those we are helping can be extremely beneficial. Using this approach would not distract from other cognitive work. CBT, after all, is a far cry from dynamic or psychoanalytic talking or listening.

Change is in the air. More and more Americans are getting vaccinated, and the CDC is constantly updating its guidance on COVID-19. That guidance should have a mental health component.

I urge the president to put mental health at the forefront by nominating an expert who could offer mental health solutions on a daily basis. This person should be on equal footing with the surgeon general. Taking this step would help destigmatize mental suffering and despair – and create greater awareness about how to address those conditions.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

When the Biden administration announced who would serve on its COVID-19 task force, some asked why a mental health expert had not been included. I have a broader question: In light of the magnitude of the pandemic’s fallout, why doesn’t the administration create a mental health post parallel to the surgeon general?

I have been making the case for creation of a high-level mental health post for quite some time. In fact, in the late 1970s, toward the end of then-President Jimmy Carter’s term, I wrote and talked about the need for a special cabinet post of mental health. At the time I realized that, besides chronic mental disorders, the amount of mental distress people experienced from a myriad of life issues leading to anxiety, depression, even posttraumatic stress disorder (although not labeled as such then), needed focused and informed leadership.

Before the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported that depression was the leading cause of disability worldwide. In the prepandemic United States, mental and substance use disorders were the top cause of disability among younger people.

We’ve lost almost 600,000 people to COVID-19, and people have been unable to grieve properly. More than 2 million women have left the labor force to care for children and sick family members. As we continue to learn about the mental health–related devastation wrought by SARS-CoV-2 – particularly long-haul COVID-19 – it’s time to dust off my proposal, update it, and implement it.
 

Building on a good decision

Back in 2017, President Trump appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, to a new post officially called “assistant secretary for mental health and substance use” and unofficially called the “mental health czar.” This was a groundbreaking step, because Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, is known for developing innovative approaches to addressing the opioid crisis in her home state of Rhode Island. She resigned from her post on Jan. 7, 2021, citing her concerns about the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

As of this writing, President Biden has nominated psychologist Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, PhD, who is commissioner of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, as mental health czar. I’m glad to see that the new administration wants a new czar, but I would prefer to see a more expansive role for a mental health professional at the federal level. The reason is because the COVID-19 fallout is requiring us to offer a greater array of mental health and substance use disorder services than ever before.
 

Processing the current crisis

Americans managed to recover emotionally from the ravages of death and dying from World War II; we lived through the “atomic age” of mutual destruction, sometimes calling it the age of anxiety. But nothing has come close to the overwhelming devastation that COVID-19 has brought to the world – and to this country.

A recent Government Accountability Office report shows 38% of U.S. adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression from April 2020 through February 2021. That was up from 11% from January to June 2019, the report said, citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, the report cites data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showing that opioid deaths were 25%-50% higher during the pandemic than a year earlier.

My sense is that people generally have opened up regarding their emotional problems in a freer manner, thus allowing us to speak about and accept mental health problems as part of our human reality – just as we accept physical disorders and search for treatment and care.

In terms of talk therapy, I still believe that the “thinking” therapies, that is, cognitive therapies that involved getting a new perspective on problems, are most effective in dealing with the myriad of emotional issues people experience as well as those that have arisen because of COVID-19, and the tremendous fear of severe illness and death that the virus can bring. Besides anxiety, depression, and fear, the psychological toll of a fractured lifestyle, coupled with social isolation, will lead many into a variety of PTSD-related conditions. Many of those conditions, including PTSD, might lift when COVID-19 is controlled, but the time frame for resolution is far from clear and will vary, depending on each person. National leadership, as well as therapists, need to be ready to work with the many mental health problems COVID-19 will leave in its wake.

Therapeutically, as we develop our cognitive approaches to the problems this pandemic has brought, whether affecting people with no past psychiatric history or those with a previous or ongoing problems, we are in a unique position ourselves to offer even more support based on our own experiences during the pandemic. Our patients have seen us wear masks and work remotely, and just as we know about their suffering, they know we have been affected as well. These shared experiences with patients can allow us to express even greater empathy and offer even greater support – which I believe enhances the cognitive process and adds more humanism to the therapeutic process.

The therapists I’ve talked with believe that sharing coping skills – even generally sharing anxieties – can be very therapeutic. They compared these exchanges to what is done in support or educational groups.

As a psychiatrist who has been treating patients using cognitive-behavioral therapy – the thinking therapy – for more than 40 years, I agree that sharing our experiences in this worldwide pandemic with those we are helping can be extremely beneficial. Using this approach would not distract from other cognitive work. CBT, after all, is a far cry from dynamic or psychoanalytic talking or listening.

Change is in the air. More and more Americans are getting vaccinated, and the CDC is constantly updating its guidance on COVID-19. That guidance should have a mental health component.

I urge the president to put mental health at the forefront by nominating an expert who could offer mental health solutions on a daily basis. This person should be on equal footing with the surgeon general. Taking this step would help destigmatize mental suffering and despair – and create greater awareness about how to address those conditions.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

When the Biden administration announced who would serve on its COVID-19 task force, some asked why a mental health expert had not been included. I have a broader question: In light of the magnitude of the pandemic’s fallout, why doesn’t the administration create a mental health post parallel to the surgeon general?

I have been making the case for creation of a high-level mental health post for quite some time. In fact, in the late 1970s, toward the end of then-President Jimmy Carter’s term, I wrote and talked about the need for a special cabinet post of mental health. At the time I realized that, besides chronic mental disorders, the amount of mental distress people experienced from a myriad of life issues leading to anxiety, depression, even posttraumatic stress disorder (although not labeled as such then), needed focused and informed leadership.

Before the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported that depression was the leading cause of disability worldwide. In the prepandemic United States, mental and substance use disorders were the top cause of disability among younger people.

We’ve lost almost 600,000 people to COVID-19, and people have been unable to grieve properly. More than 2 million women have left the labor force to care for children and sick family members. As we continue to learn about the mental health–related devastation wrought by SARS-CoV-2 – particularly long-haul COVID-19 – it’s time to dust off my proposal, update it, and implement it.
 

Building on a good decision

Back in 2017, President Trump appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, to a new post officially called “assistant secretary for mental health and substance use” and unofficially called the “mental health czar.” This was a groundbreaking step, because Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, is known for developing innovative approaches to addressing the opioid crisis in her home state of Rhode Island. She resigned from her post on Jan. 7, 2021, citing her concerns about the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

As of this writing, President Biden has nominated psychologist Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, PhD, who is commissioner of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, as mental health czar. I’m glad to see that the new administration wants a new czar, but I would prefer to see a more expansive role for a mental health professional at the federal level. The reason is because the COVID-19 fallout is requiring us to offer a greater array of mental health and substance use disorder services than ever before.
 

Processing the current crisis

Americans managed to recover emotionally from the ravages of death and dying from World War II; we lived through the “atomic age” of mutual destruction, sometimes calling it the age of anxiety. But nothing has come close to the overwhelming devastation that COVID-19 has brought to the world – and to this country.

A recent Government Accountability Office report shows 38% of U.S. adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression from April 2020 through February 2021. That was up from 11% from January to June 2019, the report said, citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, the report cites data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showing that opioid deaths were 25%-50% higher during the pandemic than a year earlier.

My sense is that people generally have opened up regarding their emotional problems in a freer manner, thus allowing us to speak about and accept mental health problems as part of our human reality – just as we accept physical disorders and search for treatment and care.

In terms of talk therapy, I still believe that the “thinking” therapies, that is, cognitive therapies that involved getting a new perspective on problems, are most effective in dealing with the myriad of emotional issues people experience as well as those that have arisen because of COVID-19, and the tremendous fear of severe illness and death that the virus can bring. Besides anxiety, depression, and fear, the psychological toll of a fractured lifestyle, coupled with social isolation, will lead many into a variety of PTSD-related conditions. Many of those conditions, including PTSD, might lift when COVID-19 is controlled, but the time frame for resolution is far from clear and will vary, depending on each person. National leadership, as well as therapists, need to be ready to work with the many mental health problems COVID-19 will leave in its wake.

Therapeutically, as we develop our cognitive approaches to the problems this pandemic has brought, whether affecting people with no past psychiatric history or those with a previous or ongoing problems, we are in a unique position ourselves to offer even more support based on our own experiences during the pandemic. Our patients have seen us wear masks and work remotely, and just as we know about their suffering, they know we have been affected as well. These shared experiences with patients can allow us to express even greater empathy and offer even greater support – which I believe enhances the cognitive process and adds more humanism to the therapeutic process.

The therapists I’ve talked with believe that sharing coping skills – even generally sharing anxieties – can be very therapeutic. They compared these exchanges to what is done in support or educational groups.

As a psychiatrist who has been treating patients using cognitive-behavioral therapy – the thinking therapy – for more than 40 years, I agree that sharing our experiences in this worldwide pandemic with those we are helping can be extremely beneficial. Using this approach would not distract from other cognitive work. CBT, after all, is a far cry from dynamic or psychoanalytic talking or listening.

Change is in the air. More and more Americans are getting vaccinated, and the CDC is constantly updating its guidance on COVID-19. That guidance should have a mental health component.

I urge the president to put mental health at the forefront by nominating an expert who could offer mental health solutions on a daily basis. This person should be on equal footing with the surgeon general. Taking this step would help destigmatize mental suffering and despair – and create greater awareness about how to address those conditions.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

“Vaccines have been the bright light of this extraordinary challenge that we’ve gone through,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

In an address for the opening ceremony of the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, Dr. Fauci emphasized the role of basic and clinical research and government support for science in helping turn the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“A few weeks ago, I wrote an editorial in Science, because there was some misunderstanding about how and why we were able to go from a realization of a new pathogen in January of 2020, to getting doses of vaccines in the arms of individuals – a highly efficacious vaccine – 11 months later. Truly, an unprecedented accomplishment,” he said.

“But as I said in the editorial, the speed and efficiency with which these highly efficacious vaccines were developed, and their potential for saving millions of lives, are due to an extraordinary multidisciplinary effort, involving basic, preclinical, and clinical science that had been underway – out of the spotlight – for decades and decades before the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact that very few people really appreciate: namely, the importance of investment in biomedical research.”
 

The general addresses the troops

Perhaps no other audience is so well suited to receive Dr. Fauci’s speech as those who are currently attending (virtually) the ATS conference, including researchers who scrutinize the virus from every angle to describe its workings and identify its vulnerabilities, epidemiologists who study viral transmission and look for ways to thwart it, public health workers who fan out to communities across the country to push vaccine acceptance, and clinicians who specialize in critical care and pulmonary medicine, many of whom staff the respiratory floors and intensive care units where the most severely ill patients are treated.

Speaking about the lessons learned and challenges remaining from the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci briefly reviewed the epidemiology, virology and transmission, diagnostics, and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19.
 

Epidemiology

The pandemic began in December 2019 with recognition of a novel type of pneumonia in the Wuhan District of Central China, Dr. Fauci noted.

“Very quickly thereafter, in the first week of January 2020, the Chinese identified a new strain of coronavirus as [the] source of the outbreak. Fast forward to where we are right now: We have experienced and are experiencing the most devastating pandemic of a respiratory illness in the last 102 years, with already approximately 160 million individuals having been infected – and this is clearly a gross undercounting – and also 3.3 million deaths, again, very likely an undercounting,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of May 9, 2021, there were approximately 32.5 million cases of COVID-19 and 578,520 deaths in the United States. Those cases and deaths occurred largely in three surges in the United States, in early spring, early summer, and late fall of 2020.
 

Virology and transmission

SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV-1 and some bat coronaviruses, Dr. Fauci explained. The viral genome is large, about 30,000 kilobases, and it has four structural proteins, most importantly the S or “spike” protein that allows the virus to attach to and fuse with cell membranes by binding to the ACE2 receptor on tissues in the upper and lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, and other organ systems.

The virus is transmitted mainly through exposure to respiratory droplets within 6 feet of an infected person, or sometimes through droplets or particles that remain in the air over time and various distances.

Contact with contaminated surfaces, once feared as a means of transmission, is now understood to be less common.

The virus has been detected in stool, blood, semen, and ocular secretions, although the role of transmission through these sources is still unknown.

“Some very interesting characteristics of this virus, really quite unique compared to other viruses, certainly other respiratory viruses, is [that] about a third to 40% of people who are infected never develop any symptoms,” Dr. Fauci said. “Importantly, and very problematic to what we do to contain it – particularly with regard to identification, isolation, and contract tracing – between 50% and 60% of the transmissions occur either from someone who will never develop symptoms, or someone in the presymptomatic phase of disease.”

The fundamentals of preventing acquisition and transmission are as familiar to most Americans now as the Pledge of Allegiance: universal mask wearing, physical distancing, avoiding crowds and congregate settings, preference for outdoor over indoor settings, and frequent hand washing, he noted.
 

Diagnostics

Tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection fall into three basic categories: molecular tests such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that are highly specific and highly sensitive for actual infections, antigen tests that detect the viral protein rather than the nucleic acids, and antibody tests to detect serum proteins made in response to viral infection.

Antigen testing is used largely for broader surveillance of groups of individuals to detect viral penetrance within that group, Dr. Fauci noted.
 

Clinical course

The clinical course of COVID-19 has some interesting characteristics but is not substantially different from a flu-like syndrome, Dr. Fauci said.

Symptoms and signs common to both types of infections include fever, cough, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and myalgias, but the loss of smell and/or taste preceding the onset of respiratory symptoms is a unique feature of COVID-19.

Dr. Fauci cited data on more than 44,000 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 in China that showed that a large majority (81%) of cases were mild or moderate in nature, but 14% of patients experienced severe disease, and 5% were critically ill. The case-fatality rate in this study was 2.3%.

People at increased risk for severe disease include older adults and those of any age with certain comorbidities.

Manifestations of severe COVID-19 infections in adults can include neurological disorders, hyperinflammation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac dysfunction, hypercoagulability, and acute kidney injury.

In children, COVID-19 has been associated with a multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) similar to Kawasaki disease.

In a substantial number of cases, the effects of COVID-19 can linger for 6 months or longer, Dr. Fauci said, pointing to a study from the University of Washington in Seattle.

Investigators there found that approximately 30% of patients enrolled at their center reported persistent symptoms for as long as 9 months after the initial illness, with fatigue as the most commonly reported symptom. One-third of outpatients with mild disease also reported persistent symptoms.
 

Therapeutics

Therapeutics that are either approved by the Food and Drug Administration, have emergency use authorization, or are in clinical trials for early or moderate disease include remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead Sciences), monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, antiviral agents, hyperimmune globulin, anticoagulants, and immunomodulators.

Options for moderate to severe to advanced disease include dexamethasone, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly and Company) plus remdesivir, and immunomodulators such as infliximab (Remicade, Janssen Biotech), and biosimilars.
 

Vaccines

Finally, Dr. Fauci reviewed the current state of vaccines, including the three with emergency use authorization from the FDA as of this writing: two nucleic acid, messenger RNA-based (mRNA) vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, and an adenoviral vector-based vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.

Other vaccines in development or in use elsewhere in the world include recombinant protein and adjuvant approaches by GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi (in a phase 2 clinical trial launched in February 2021) and by Novavax.

The three vaccines in use in the United States were highly efficacious in both clinical trials, with efficacy of about 95% for the mRNA vaccines and 67% for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The real-world performance of these vaccines has been even more impressive, however.

For example, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had 72% efficacy at preventing moderate to severe COVID 19 in the United States, 68% in Brazil, and 64% in South Africa, and 85% efficacy against severe disease across all regions studied, Dr. Fauci said.

He cited a study of 22,234 employees of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who were vaccinated under a program started on Dec. 15, 2020. The COVID-19 infection rate among these vaccinated employees was 0.05%.

Dr. Fauci recounted the experience in Israel, where the highly transmissible B.1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2 is predominant. A chart of the progress shows clearly that as the vaccine doses delivered steadily increased, the number of COVID-19 cases began a precipitous decline.
 

Horse race

Fittingly for a speech presented on the day that the Preakness Stakes – the second leg in thoroughbred racing’s Triple Crown – was run, Dr. Fauci closed with a cartoon showing two racehorses, labeled “SARS-CoV-2” and “Vaccines,” nearly neck-and-neck, but with vaccines having a slight lead.

“We are in a race against the virus. The vaccines, and the virus: If we vaccinate the overwhelming proportion of our population, we will without a doubt be able to crush the outbreak in the same way as we have done with other viral-borne diseases like measles, smallpox, and polio.

“So, the message is: Get vaccinated,” he concluded.
 

“Vaccines have been the bright light of this extraordinary challenge that we’ve gone through,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

In an address for the opening ceremony of the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, Dr. Fauci emphasized the role of basic and clinical research and government support for science in helping turn the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“A few weeks ago, I wrote an editorial in Science, because there was some misunderstanding about how and why we were able to go from a realization of a new pathogen in January of 2020, to getting doses of vaccines in the arms of individuals – a highly efficacious vaccine – 11 months later. Truly, an unprecedented accomplishment,” he said.

“But as I said in the editorial, the speed and efficiency with which these highly efficacious vaccines were developed, and their potential for saving millions of lives, are due to an extraordinary multidisciplinary effort, involving basic, preclinical, and clinical science that had been underway – out of the spotlight – for decades and decades before the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact that very few people really appreciate: namely, the importance of investment in biomedical research.”
 

The general addresses the troops

Perhaps no other audience is so well suited to receive Dr. Fauci’s speech as those who are currently attending (virtually) the ATS conference, including researchers who scrutinize the virus from every angle to describe its workings and identify its vulnerabilities, epidemiologists who study viral transmission and look for ways to thwart it, public health workers who fan out to communities across the country to push vaccine acceptance, and clinicians who specialize in critical care and pulmonary medicine, many of whom staff the respiratory floors and intensive care units where the most severely ill patients are treated.

Speaking about the lessons learned and challenges remaining from the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci briefly reviewed the epidemiology, virology and transmission, diagnostics, and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19.
 

Epidemiology

The pandemic began in December 2019 with recognition of a novel type of pneumonia in the Wuhan District of Central China, Dr. Fauci noted.

“Very quickly thereafter, in the first week of January 2020, the Chinese identified a new strain of coronavirus as [the] source of the outbreak. Fast forward to where we are right now: We have experienced and are experiencing the most devastating pandemic of a respiratory illness in the last 102 years, with already approximately 160 million individuals having been infected – and this is clearly a gross undercounting – and also 3.3 million deaths, again, very likely an undercounting,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of May 9, 2021, there were approximately 32.5 million cases of COVID-19 and 578,520 deaths in the United States. Those cases and deaths occurred largely in three surges in the United States, in early spring, early summer, and late fall of 2020.
 

Virology and transmission

SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV-1 and some bat coronaviruses, Dr. Fauci explained. The viral genome is large, about 30,000 kilobases, and it has four structural proteins, most importantly the S or “spike” protein that allows the virus to attach to and fuse with cell membranes by binding to the ACE2 receptor on tissues in the upper and lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, and other organ systems.

The virus is transmitted mainly through exposure to respiratory droplets within 6 feet of an infected person, or sometimes through droplets or particles that remain in the air over time and various distances.

Contact with contaminated surfaces, once feared as a means of transmission, is now understood to be less common.

The virus has been detected in stool, blood, semen, and ocular secretions, although the role of transmission through these sources is still unknown.

“Some very interesting characteristics of this virus, really quite unique compared to other viruses, certainly other respiratory viruses, is [that] about a third to 40% of people who are infected never develop any symptoms,” Dr. Fauci said. “Importantly, and very problematic to what we do to contain it – particularly with regard to identification, isolation, and contract tracing – between 50% and 60% of the transmissions occur either from someone who will never develop symptoms, or someone in the presymptomatic phase of disease.”

The fundamentals of preventing acquisition and transmission are as familiar to most Americans now as the Pledge of Allegiance: universal mask wearing, physical distancing, avoiding crowds and congregate settings, preference for outdoor over indoor settings, and frequent hand washing, he noted.
 

Diagnostics

Tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection fall into three basic categories: molecular tests such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that are highly specific and highly sensitive for actual infections, antigen tests that detect the viral protein rather than the nucleic acids, and antibody tests to detect serum proteins made in response to viral infection.

Antigen testing is used largely for broader surveillance of groups of individuals to detect viral penetrance within that group, Dr. Fauci noted.
 

Clinical course

The clinical course of COVID-19 has some interesting characteristics but is not substantially different from a flu-like syndrome, Dr. Fauci said.

Symptoms and signs common to both types of infections include fever, cough, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and myalgias, but the loss of smell and/or taste preceding the onset of respiratory symptoms is a unique feature of COVID-19.

Dr. Fauci cited data on more than 44,000 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 in China that showed that a large majority (81%) of cases were mild or moderate in nature, but 14% of patients experienced severe disease, and 5% were critically ill. The case-fatality rate in this study was 2.3%.

People at increased risk for severe disease include older adults and those of any age with certain comorbidities.

Manifestations of severe COVID-19 infections in adults can include neurological disorders, hyperinflammation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac dysfunction, hypercoagulability, and acute kidney injury.

In children, COVID-19 has been associated with a multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) similar to Kawasaki disease.

In a substantial number of cases, the effects of COVID-19 can linger for 6 months or longer, Dr. Fauci said, pointing to a study from the University of Washington in Seattle.

Investigators there found that approximately 30% of patients enrolled at their center reported persistent symptoms for as long as 9 months after the initial illness, with fatigue as the most commonly reported symptom. One-third of outpatients with mild disease also reported persistent symptoms.
 

Therapeutics

Therapeutics that are either approved by the Food and Drug Administration, have emergency use authorization, or are in clinical trials for early or moderate disease include remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead Sciences), monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, antiviral agents, hyperimmune globulin, anticoagulants, and immunomodulators.

Options for moderate to severe to advanced disease include dexamethasone, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly and Company) plus remdesivir, and immunomodulators such as infliximab (Remicade, Janssen Biotech), and biosimilars.
 

Vaccines

Finally, Dr. Fauci reviewed the current state of vaccines, including the three with emergency use authorization from the FDA as of this writing: two nucleic acid, messenger RNA-based (mRNA) vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, and an adenoviral vector-based vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.

Other vaccines in development or in use elsewhere in the world include recombinant protein and adjuvant approaches by GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi (in a phase 2 clinical trial launched in February 2021) and by Novavax.

The three vaccines in use in the United States were highly efficacious in both clinical trials, with efficacy of about 95% for the mRNA vaccines and 67% for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The real-world performance of these vaccines has been even more impressive, however.

For example, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had 72% efficacy at preventing moderate to severe COVID 19 in the United States, 68% in Brazil, and 64% in South Africa, and 85% efficacy against severe disease across all regions studied, Dr. Fauci said.

He cited a study of 22,234 employees of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who were vaccinated under a program started on Dec. 15, 2020. The COVID-19 infection rate among these vaccinated employees was 0.05%.

Dr. Fauci recounted the experience in Israel, where the highly transmissible B.1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2 is predominant. A chart of the progress shows clearly that as the vaccine doses delivered steadily increased, the number of COVID-19 cases began a precipitous decline.
 

Horse race

Fittingly for a speech presented on the day that the Preakness Stakes – the second leg in thoroughbred racing’s Triple Crown – was run, Dr. Fauci closed with a cartoon showing two racehorses, labeled “SARS-CoV-2” and “Vaccines,” nearly neck-and-neck, but with vaccines having a slight lead.

“We are in a race against the virus. The vaccines, and the virus: If we vaccinate the overwhelming proportion of our population, we will without a doubt be able to crush the outbreak in the same way as we have done with other viral-borne diseases like measles, smallpox, and polio.

“So, the message is: Get vaccinated,” he concluded.
 

“Vaccines have been the bright light of this extraordinary challenge that we’ve gone through,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

In an address for the opening ceremony of the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, Dr. Fauci emphasized the role of basic and clinical research and government support for science in helping turn the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“A few weeks ago, I wrote an editorial in Science, because there was some misunderstanding about how and why we were able to go from a realization of a new pathogen in January of 2020, to getting doses of vaccines in the arms of individuals – a highly efficacious vaccine – 11 months later. Truly, an unprecedented accomplishment,” he said.

“But as I said in the editorial, the speed and efficiency with which these highly efficacious vaccines were developed, and their potential for saving millions of lives, are due to an extraordinary multidisciplinary effort, involving basic, preclinical, and clinical science that had been underway – out of the spotlight – for decades and decades before the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact that very few people really appreciate: namely, the importance of investment in biomedical research.”
 

The general addresses the troops

Perhaps no other audience is so well suited to receive Dr. Fauci’s speech as those who are currently attending (virtually) the ATS conference, including researchers who scrutinize the virus from every angle to describe its workings and identify its vulnerabilities, epidemiologists who study viral transmission and look for ways to thwart it, public health workers who fan out to communities across the country to push vaccine acceptance, and clinicians who specialize in critical care and pulmonary medicine, many of whom staff the respiratory floors and intensive care units where the most severely ill patients are treated.

Speaking about the lessons learned and challenges remaining from the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci briefly reviewed the epidemiology, virology and transmission, diagnostics, and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19.
 

Epidemiology

The pandemic began in December 2019 with recognition of a novel type of pneumonia in the Wuhan District of Central China, Dr. Fauci noted.

“Very quickly thereafter, in the first week of January 2020, the Chinese identified a new strain of coronavirus as [the] source of the outbreak. Fast forward to where we are right now: We have experienced and are experiencing the most devastating pandemic of a respiratory illness in the last 102 years, with already approximately 160 million individuals having been infected – and this is clearly a gross undercounting – and also 3.3 million deaths, again, very likely an undercounting,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of May 9, 2021, there were approximately 32.5 million cases of COVID-19 and 578,520 deaths in the United States. Those cases and deaths occurred largely in three surges in the United States, in early spring, early summer, and late fall of 2020.
 

Virology and transmission

SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV-1 and some bat coronaviruses, Dr. Fauci explained. The viral genome is large, about 30,000 kilobases, and it has four structural proteins, most importantly the S or “spike” protein that allows the virus to attach to and fuse with cell membranes by binding to the ACE2 receptor on tissues in the upper and lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, and other organ systems.

The virus is transmitted mainly through exposure to respiratory droplets within 6 feet of an infected person, or sometimes through droplets or particles that remain in the air over time and various distances.

Contact with contaminated surfaces, once feared as a means of transmission, is now understood to be less common.

The virus has been detected in stool, blood, semen, and ocular secretions, although the role of transmission through these sources is still unknown.

“Some very interesting characteristics of this virus, really quite unique compared to other viruses, certainly other respiratory viruses, is [that] about a third to 40% of people who are infected never develop any symptoms,” Dr. Fauci said. “Importantly, and very problematic to what we do to contain it – particularly with regard to identification, isolation, and contract tracing – between 50% and 60% of the transmissions occur either from someone who will never develop symptoms, or someone in the presymptomatic phase of disease.”

The fundamentals of preventing acquisition and transmission are as familiar to most Americans now as the Pledge of Allegiance: universal mask wearing, physical distancing, avoiding crowds and congregate settings, preference for outdoor over indoor settings, and frequent hand washing, he noted.
 

Diagnostics

Tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection fall into three basic categories: molecular tests such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that are highly specific and highly sensitive for actual infections, antigen tests that detect the viral protein rather than the nucleic acids, and antibody tests to detect serum proteins made in response to viral infection.

Antigen testing is used largely for broader surveillance of groups of individuals to detect viral penetrance within that group, Dr. Fauci noted.
 

Clinical course

The clinical course of COVID-19 has some interesting characteristics but is not substantially different from a flu-like syndrome, Dr. Fauci said.

Symptoms and signs common to both types of infections include fever, cough, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and myalgias, but the loss of smell and/or taste preceding the onset of respiratory symptoms is a unique feature of COVID-19.

Dr. Fauci cited data on more than 44,000 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 in China that showed that a large majority (81%) of cases were mild or moderate in nature, but 14% of patients experienced severe disease, and 5% were critically ill. The case-fatality rate in this study was 2.3%.

People at increased risk for severe disease include older adults and those of any age with certain comorbidities.

Manifestations of severe COVID-19 infections in adults can include neurological disorders, hyperinflammation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac dysfunction, hypercoagulability, and acute kidney injury.

In children, COVID-19 has been associated with a multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) similar to Kawasaki disease.

In a substantial number of cases, the effects of COVID-19 can linger for 6 months or longer, Dr. Fauci said, pointing to a study from the University of Washington in Seattle.

Investigators there found that approximately 30% of patients enrolled at their center reported persistent symptoms for as long as 9 months after the initial illness, with fatigue as the most commonly reported symptom. One-third of outpatients with mild disease also reported persistent symptoms.
 

Therapeutics

Therapeutics that are either approved by the Food and Drug Administration, have emergency use authorization, or are in clinical trials for early or moderate disease include remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead Sciences), monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, antiviral agents, hyperimmune globulin, anticoagulants, and immunomodulators.

Options for moderate to severe to advanced disease include dexamethasone, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly and Company) plus remdesivir, and immunomodulators such as infliximab (Remicade, Janssen Biotech), and biosimilars.
 

Vaccines

Finally, Dr. Fauci reviewed the current state of vaccines, including the three with emergency use authorization from the FDA as of this writing: two nucleic acid, messenger RNA-based (mRNA) vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, and an adenoviral vector-based vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.

Other vaccines in development or in use elsewhere in the world include recombinant protein and adjuvant approaches by GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi (in a phase 2 clinical trial launched in February 2021) and by Novavax.

The three vaccines in use in the United States were highly efficacious in both clinical trials, with efficacy of about 95% for the mRNA vaccines and 67% for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The real-world performance of these vaccines has been even more impressive, however.

For example, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had 72% efficacy at preventing moderate to severe COVID 19 in the United States, 68% in Brazil, and 64% in South Africa, and 85% efficacy against severe disease across all regions studied, Dr. Fauci said.

He cited a study of 22,234 employees of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who were vaccinated under a program started on Dec. 15, 2020. The COVID-19 infection rate among these vaccinated employees was 0.05%.

Dr. Fauci recounted the experience in Israel, where the highly transmissible B.1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2 is predominant. A chart of the progress shows clearly that as the vaccine doses delivered steadily increased, the number of COVID-19 cases began a precipitous decline.
 

Horse race

Fittingly for a speech presented on the day that the Preakness Stakes – the second leg in thoroughbred racing’s Triple Crown – was run, Dr. Fauci closed with a cartoon showing two racehorses, labeled “SARS-CoV-2” and “Vaccines,” nearly neck-and-neck, but with vaccines having a slight lead.

“We are in a race against the virus. The vaccines, and the virus: If we vaccinate the overwhelming proportion of our population, we will without a doubt be able to crush the outbreak in the same way as we have done with other viral-borne diseases like measles, smallpox, and polio.

“So, the message is: Get vaccinated,” he concluded.