Clinical Psychiatry News

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Insomnia disorder appears to play a causal role in the development of new stressful life events, especially “dependent” events for which individuals are at least partly responsible, said the investigators of an ongoing longitudinal study of people who have experienced involuntary job loss.

The “stress-generation hypothesis” has been applied for several decades in the context of depression. It posits that depressed individuals generate more stressful life events – events that create family conflict or disrupt careers, for instance – than individuals who are not depressed.

The new analysis of individuals with involuntary job loss suggests that the same can be said of insomnia. “Insomnia disorder is associated with fatigue, daytime sleepiness, impaired concentration, and difficulties in emotional regulation,” Iva Skobic, MSPH, MA, a PhD student at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“These may lead to impaired decision-making, interpersonal conflicts, difficulty meeting deadlines and keeping commitments, and other sources [of stressful life events],” she said. “This extension of the stress-generation hypothesis has important implications for harm reduction interventions for insomnia disorder.”

Investigators conducted a cross-lagged panel analysis using baseline and 3-month follow-up data from 137 individuals who completed a standardized, textual life event measure called the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule after having lost their jobs involuntarily. Participants were interviewed and their events were rated for severity by a consensus panel using operationalized criteria. The analysis employed linear regression controlling for covariates (age, gender, and race) and logistic regression that controlled for insomnia at baseline. Insomnia disorder was defined as meeting ICSD-2/3 criteria using the Duke Structured Interview for Sleep Disorders.

The findings: Insomnia disorder at baseline predicted the number of stressful life events (either dependent or interpersonal) generated within 3 months (beta, 0.70; standard error, 0.31; Tscore, 2.27; P = .03). Conversely, the number of stressful events at baseline did not predict insomnia (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.29). There also was a trend toward increased generation of dependent events specifically among those with insomnia disorder.

Participants were a mean age of 42 years, and all had been in their previous place of employment for at least 6 months. Nearly 60% met the diagnostic threshold for insomnia at baseline. They were part of a larger ongoing study examining the linkages between job loss and sleep disturbances, obesity, and mental health – the Assessing Daily Activity Patterns through Occupational Transitions (ADAPT) study, supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

This analysis on insomnia was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic began, but it and other analyses soon to be reported are highly relevant to the economic climate, said Patricia Haynes, PhD, principal investigator of ADAPT and a coauthor of the insomnia study, in an interview after the meeting.

Insomnia is a frequent comorbidity of depression and shares many of its symptoms, from increased fatigue to emotional dysregulation and an increased risk of maladaptive coping strategies. “Interestingly, the literature on the stress-generation hypothesis posits that these very symptoms are on the casual pathway between depression and stressful life events,” said Ms. Skobic at the meeting.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that the analysis did not include any measure of the severity of insomnia. Still, he said, “finding an association [with stress generation] at [just] 3 months with the presence of insomnia disorder is quite interesting.”

There were higher rates of insomnia in the sample than depression, Dr. Haynes said, but the analysis did not control for depression or take it into account.

“We know [from prior research] that stress clearly leads to insomnia. The big [takeaway] here is that insomnia can also lead to more stress,” she said. “It’s important to think of it as a reciprocal relationship. If we can potentially treat insomnia, we may be able to stop that cycle of other stressful events that affect both [the individuals] and others as well.”

Ms. Skobic had no disclosures.

Insomnia disorder appears to play a causal role in the development of new stressful life events, especially “dependent” events for which individuals are at least partly responsible, said the investigators of an ongoing longitudinal study of people who have experienced involuntary job loss.

The “stress-generation hypothesis” has been applied for several decades in the context of depression. It posits that depressed individuals generate more stressful life events – events that create family conflict or disrupt careers, for instance – than individuals who are not depressed.

The new analysis of individuals with involuntary job loss suggests that the same can be said of insomnia. “Insomnia disorder is associated with fatigue, daytime sleepiness, impaired concentration, and difficulties in emotional regulation,” Iva Skobic, MSPH, MA, a PhD student at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“These may lead to impaired decision-making, interpersonal conflicts, difficulty meeting deadlines and keeping commitments, and other sources [of stressful life events],” she said. “This extension of the stress-generation hypothesis has important implications for harm reduction interventions for insomnia disorder.”

Investigators conducted a cross-lagged panel analysis using baseline and 3-month follow-up data from 137 individuals who completed a standardized, textual life event measure called the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule after having lost their jobs involuntarily. Participants were interviewed and their events were rated for severity by a consensus panel using operationalized criteria. The analysis employed linear regression controlling for covariates (age, gender, and race) and logistic regression that controlled for insomnia at baseline. Insomnia disorder was defined as meeting ICSD-2/3 criteria using the Duke Structured Interview for Sleep Disorders.

The findings: Insomnia disorder at baseline predicted the number of stressful life events (either dependent or interpersonal) generated within 3 months (beta, 0.70; standard error, 0.31; Tscore, 2.27; P = .03). Conversely, the number of stressful events at baseline did not predict insomnia (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.29). There also was a trend toward increased generation of dependent events specifically among those with insomnia disorder.

Participants were a mean age of 42 years, and all had been in their previous place of employment for at least 6 months. Nearly 60% met the diagnostic threshold for insomnia at baseline. They were part of a larger ongoing study examining the linkages between job loss and sleep disturbances, obesity, and mental health – the Assessing Daily Activity Patterns through Occupational Transitions (ADAPT) study, supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

This analysis on insomnia was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic began, but it and other analyses soon to be reported are highly relevant to the economic climate, said Patricia Haynes, PhD, principal investigator of ADAPT and a coauthor of the insomnia study, in an interview after the meeting.

Insomnia is a frequent comorbidity of depression and shares many of its symptoms, from increased fatigue to emotional dysregulation and an increased risk of maladaptive coping strategies. “Interestingly, the literature on the stress-generation hypothesis posits that these very symptoms are on the casual pathway between depression and stressful life events,” said Ms. Skobic at the meeting.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that the analysis did not include any measure of the severity of insomnia. Still, he said, “finding an association [with stress generation] at [just] 3 months with the presence of insomnia disorder is quite interesting.”

There were higher rates of insomnia in the sample than depression, Dr. Haynes said, but the analysis did not control for depression or take it into account.

“We know [from prior research] that stress clearly leads to insomnia. The big [takeaway] here is that insomnia can also lead to more stress,” she said. “It’s important to think of it as a reciprocal relationship. If we can potentially treat insomnia, we may be able to stop that cycle of other stressful events that affect both [the individuals] and others as well.”

Ms. Skobic had no disclosures.

Insomnia disorder appears to play a causal role in the development of new stressful life events, especially “dependent” events for which individuals are at least partly responsible, said the investigators of an ongoing longitudinal study of people who have experienced involuntary job loss.

The “stress-generation hypothesis” has been applied for several decades in the context of depression. It posits that depressed individuals generate more stressful life events – events that create family conflict or disrupt careers, for instance – than individuals who are not depressed.

The new analysis of individuals with involuntary job loss suggests that the same can be said of insomnia. “Insomnia disorder is associated with fatigue, daytime sleepiness, impaired concentration, and difficulties in emotional regulation,” Iva Skobic, MSPH, MA, a PhD student at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“These may lead to impaired decision-making, interpersonal conflicts, difficulty meeting deadlines and keeping commitments, and other sources [of stressful life events],” she said. “This extension of the stress-generation hypothesis has important implications for harm reduction interventions for insomnia disorder.”

Investigators conducted a cross-lagged panel analysis using baseline and 3-month follow-up data from 137 individuals who completed a standardized, textual life event measure called the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule after having lost their jobs involuntarily. Participants were interviewed and their events were rated for severity by a consensus panel using operationalized criteria. The analysis employed linear regression controlling for covariates (age, gender, and race) and logistic regression that controlled for insomnia at baseline. Insomnia disorder was defined as meeting ICSD-2/3 criteria using the Duke Structured Interview for Sleep Disorders.

The findings: Insomnia disorder at baseline predicted the number of stressful life events (either dependent or interpersonal) generated within 3 months (beta, 0.70; standard error, 0.31; Tscore, 2.27; P = .03). Conversely, the number of stressful events at baseline did not predict insomnia (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.29). There also was a trend toward increased generation of dependent events specifically among those with insomnia disorder.

Participants were a mean age of 42 years, and all had been in their previous place of employment for at least 6 months. Nearly 60% met the diagnostic threshold for insomnia at baseline. They were part of a larger ongoing study examining the linkages between job loss and sleep disturbances, obesity, and mental health – the Assessing Daily Activity Patterns through Occupational Transitions (ADAPT) study, supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

This analysis on insomnia was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic began, but it and other analyses soon to be reported are highly relevant to the economic climate, said Patricia Haynes, PhD, principal investigator of ADAPT and a coauthor of the insomnia study, in an interview after the meeting.

Insomnia is a frequent comorbidity of depression and shares many of its symptoms, from increased fatigue to emotional dysregulation and an increased risk of maladaptive coping strategies. “Interestingly, the literature on the stress-generation hypothesis posits that these very symptoms are on the casual pathway between depression and stressful life events,” said Ms. Skobic at the meeting.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that the analysis did not include any measure of the severity of insomnia. Still, he said, “finding an association [with stress generation] at [just] 3 months with the presence of insomnia disorder is quite interesting.”

There were higher rates of insomnia in the sample than depression, Dr. Haynes said, but the analysis did not control for depression or take it into account.

“We know [from prior research] that stress clearly leads to insomnia. The big [takeaway] here is that insomnia can also lead to more stress,” she said. “It’s important to think of it as a reciprocal relationship. If we can potentially treat insomnia, we may be able to stop that cycle of other stressful events that affect both [the individuals] and others as well.”

Ms. Skobic had no disclosures.

SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.

Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.

On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.

“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.

“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.

The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Limited evidence

Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.

However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.

In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.

“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.

The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.

The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.

Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.

“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.

In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.

A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.

Close monitoring required

An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.

Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.

For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).

There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.

The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).

The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)

The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.

“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.

“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.

She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.

Useful ‘real-world data’

William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”

Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”

The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.

“As a pediatrician, I would find these results useful as I work with my patients, their families, and behavioral health colleagues in making important treatment decisions.”

The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.

Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.

On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.

“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.

“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.

The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Limited evidence

Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.

However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.

In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.

“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.

The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.

The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.

Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.

“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.

In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.

A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.

Close monitoring required

An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.

Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.

For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).

There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.

The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).

The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)

The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.

“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.

“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.

She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.

Useful ‘real-world data’

William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”

Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”

The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.

“As a pediatrician, I would find these results useful as I work with my patients, their families, and behavioral health colleagues in making important treatment decisions.”

The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.

Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.

On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.

“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.

“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.

The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Limited evidence

Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.

However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.

In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.

“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.

The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.

The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.

Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.

“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.

In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.

A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.

Close monitoring required

An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.

Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.

For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).

There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.

The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).

The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)

The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.

“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.

“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.

She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.

Useful ‘real-world data’

William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”

Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”

The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.

“As a pediatrician, I would find these results useful as I work with my patients, their families, and behavioral health colleagues in making important treatment decisions.”

The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The gut microbiota differs significantly between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and healthy individuals and may be modifiable with a probiotic diet to improve stress and depression scores, two new studies suggest.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

In one study, investigators compared stool samples between patients with MDD and healthy controls. They found significant differences in bacterial profiles between the two groups, as well as between patients who responded vs those who were resistant to treatment.

“This finding further supports the relevance of an altered composition of the gut microbiota in the etiopathogenesis of MDD and suggests a role in response to antidepressants,” coinvestigator Andrea Fontana, MSc, Fondazione IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, said in an interview.

Results from the second study showed significant improvements in self-reported stress, anxiety, and depression scores in healthy individuals following a “psychobiotic” diet (using probiotics or prebiotics to manipulate the microbiota to improve mental health) that was rich in fruit, vegetables, and fermented foods vs. those who received dietary advice alone.

The investigators, led by Kirsten Berding, PhD, APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Ireland, now plan on testing their psychobiotic diet in patients with MDD and hope the findings could be helpful in “the development of adjuvant therapeutic opportunities” where pharmacologic treatment is not effective.

Both studies were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A “hallmark” of major depression

Mr. Fontana and colleagues note that the mostly suboptimal response to pharmacologic treatments among patients with MDD is one of the factors that “contributes to the large socioeconomic burden” of the disease.

Previous research shows patients with MDD have gut dysbiosis, or an imbalance in the natural flora; that antidepressants have antimicrobial properties; and that probiotics have an antibiotic effect. However, the correlation between the composition of the gut microbiota and antidepressant response is poorly understood.

The investigators recruited 34 patients with MDD (aged 18-70 years) who were in a euthymic phase and who did not have comorbid conditions that could affect the gut microbiota.

Eight patients were treatment resistant, defined as a poor response to at least two adequate trials of different antidepressant classes, while 19 were treatment responsive and seven were treatment naive.

The researchers also recruited 20 healthy individuals via word of mouth to act as the control group. There were no significant differences between patients and the control group in terms of baseline characteristics.

Genomic sequencing of bacteria obtained from stool samples showed that it was possible to distinguish between patients with MDD and the healthy individuals, especially at the family, genus, and species levels.

In particular, there were significant differences in the Paenibacillaceae and Flavobacteriaceaea families, for the genus Fenollaria, and the species Flintibacter butyricus, Christensenella timonensis, and Eisenbergiella massiliensis, among others.

Results also showed that the phyla Proteobacteria, Tenericutes, and the family Peptostreptococcaceae were more common in patients with treatment-resistant MDD, whereas the phylum Actinobacteria was more abundant in treatment responders.

Moreover, several bacteria were found only in the microbiota of patients with treatment-resistant MDD, while others were seen only in treatment-responsive patients. This made it possible to discriminate not only between treatment-resistant and -responsive patients but also between those two patient groups and healthy controls.

“The results of our study confirm that gut dysbiosis is a hallmark of MDD, and suggests that the gut microbiota of patients with treatment-resistant MDD significantly differs from responders to antidepressants,” Mr. Fontana said.
 

Psychobiotic diet

For the second study, Dr. Berding and colleagues note that “psychobiotics” has previously achieved “promising results.”

In addition, diet is both “one of the most influential modifying factors” for the gut microbiota and an easily accessible strategy, they wrote. However, there is also a paucity of studies in this area, they added.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy volunteers with relatively poor dietary habits to either a 4-week psychobiotic diet group (n = 21) or a control group (n = 19).

Courtesy National Cancer Institute

Individuals in the psychobiotic group were told to eat a diet rich in prebiotics, such as fruit and vegetables, fiber including whole grains and legumes, and fermented foods. The control group was educated on Irish healthy-eating guidelines.

Stool and saliva samples were collected and the participants completed several self-reported mental health questionnaires, as well as a 7-day food diary. They also took the socially evaluated cold-pressor test (SECPT) to measure acute stress responses.

Results showed that total daily energy intake decreased significantly in both the diet and control groups over the study period (P = .04 for both) but did not differ significantly between the groups.

In contrast, dietary fiber intake increased significantly in the diet group (P < .001) and was significantly higher than in the control group at the end of the intervention (P = .03).

Individuals in the diet group showed significant decreases in scores on the Perceived Stress Scale (P = .002) and the Beck Depression Inventory (P = .007) during the study, an effect that was not found in the control group.
 

Dietary intervention

There were no significant effects of diet on the acute stress response, but both groups showed improvements in self-concept, or perceived ability to cope, on the Primary Appraisal, Secondary Appraisal index (P = .03 for the diet group, P = .04 for the control group).

The results show that a dietary intervention targeted at the microbiota “can improve subjective feelings of stress and depression in a healthy population,” the investigators wrote.

However, elucidating the “contribution of the microbiota-gut-brain axis on the signaling response to dietary interventions” will require further studies on microbiota sequencing and biological measures of stress, they added.

This will “contribute to the understanding of the benefits of a psychobiotic diet on stress and anxiety,” wrote the researchers.

Dr. Berding said in an interview that while the consumption of dietary fiber changed the most in the diet group, “it would not be the only nutrient” that had an impact on the results, with fermented foods a likely candidate.

She said the next step is to test the dietary intervention in patients with MDD; however, “doing nutritional interventions in diseased populations is always difficult.”

Dr. Berding suggested that the best approach would be to study inpatients in a clinic, as “we would be able to provide every meal and only provide foods that are part of the dietary intervention.”

Although another option would be to conduct the study in outpatients, she noted that assessing inpatients “would give us the best control over compliance.”
 

“Brilliant ideas”

Commenting on the findings, Sergueï Fetissov, MD, PhD, professor of physiology at Rouen University, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said that although both studies bring attention to a possible role for the gut microbiota in MDD, neither “provide any experimental evidence of a causative nature.”

Dr. Fetissov, who was not involved in either study, noted that this topic has been the subject of clinical nutritional research for many years.

However, “we still need some strong evidence to prove that some bacteria can influence the regulation of mood and anxiety and stress,” he said.

In addition, researchers currently do not know what actually causes MDD. “How we can say the gut bacteria regulates something if we don’t know what really causes the altered mood?” said Dr. Fetissov.

He noted that over the last 50 years, there have been great advances in the development of drugs that alleviate depression and anxiety by regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters. However, it is still unknown whether these reflect primary or secondary aspects of mood disorders.

Furthermore, it is not clear “how probiotics to bacteria can influence these neuronal pathways,” he said.

“The ideas are brilliant and I support them ... but we have to provide proof,” Dr. Fetissov concluded.

The research by Dr. Berding and colleagues is funded by a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Irish Research Council. The study authors and Dr. Fetissov have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The gut microbiota differs significantly between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and healthy individuals and may be modifiable with a probiotic diet to improve stress and depression scores, two new studies suggest.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

In one study, investigators compared stool samples between patients with MDD and healthy controls. They found significant differences in bacterial profiles between the two groups, as well as between patients who responded vs those who were resistant to treatment.

“This finding further supports the relevance of an altered composition of the gut microbiota in the etiopathogenesis of MDD and suggests a role in response to antidepressants,” coinvestigator Andrea Fontana, MSc, Fondazione IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, said in an interview.

Results from the second study showed significant improvements in self-reported stress, anxiety, and depression scores in healthy individuals following a “psychobiotic” diet (using probiotics or prebiotics to manipulate the microbiota to improve mental health) that was rich in fruit, vegetables, and fermented foods vs. those who received dietary advice alone.

The investigators, led by Kirsten Berding, PhD, APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Ireland, now plan on testing their psychobiotic diet in patients with MDD and hope the findings could be helpful in “the development of adjuvant therapeutic opportunities” where pharmacologic treatment is not effective.

Both studies were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A “hallmark” of major depression

Mr. Fontana and colleagues note that the mostly suboptimal response to pharmacologic treatments among patients with MDD is one of the factors that “contributes to the large socioeconomic burden” of the disease.

Previous research shows patients with MDD have gut dysbiosis, or an imbalance in the natural flora; that antidepressants have antimicrobial properties; and that probiotics have an antibiotic effect. However, the correlation between the composition of the gut microbiota and antidepressant response is poorly understood.

The investigators recruited 34 patients with MDD (aged 18-70 years) who were in a euthymic phase and who did not have comorbid conditions that could affect the gut microbiota.

Eight patients were treatment resistant, defined as a poor response to at least two adequate trials of different antidepressant classes, while 19 were treatment responsive and seven were treatment naive.

The researchers also recruited 20 healthy individuals via word of mouth to act as the control group. There were no significant differences between patients and the control group in terms of baseline characteristics.

Genomic sequencing of bacteria obtained from stool samples showed that it was possible to distinguish between patients with MDD and the healthy individuals, especially at the family, genus, and species levels.

In particular, there were significant differences in the Paenibacillaceae and Flavobacteriaceaea families, for the genus Fenollaria, and the species Flintibacter butyricus, Christensenella timonensis, and Eisenbergiella massiliensis, among others.

Results also showed that the phyla Proteobacteria, Tenericutes, and the family Peptostreptococcaceae were more common in patients with treatment-resistant MDD, whereas the phylum Actinobacteria was more abundant in treatment responders.

Moreover, several bacteria were found only in the microbiota of patients with treatment-resistant MDD, while others were seen only in treatment-responsive patients. This made it possible to discriminate not only between treatment-resistant and -responsive patients but also between those two patient groups and healthy controls.

“The results of our study confirm that gut dysbiosis is a hallmark of MDD, and suggests that the gut microbiota of patients with treatment-resistant MDD significantly differs from responders to antidepressants,” Mr. Fontana said.
 

Psychobiotic diet

For the second study, Dr. Berding and colleagues note that “psychobiotics” has previously achieved “promising results.”

In addition, diet is both “one of the most influential modifying factors” for the gut microbiota and an easily accessible strategy, they wrote. However, there is also a paucity of studies in this area, they added.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy volunteers with relatively poor dietary habits to either a 4-week psychobiotic diet group (n = 21) or a control group (n = 19).

Courtesy National Cancer Institute

Individuals in the psychobiotic group were told to eat a diet rich in prebiotics, such as fruit and vegetables, fiber including whole grains and legumes, and fermented foods. The control group was educated on Irish healthy-eating guidelines.

Stool and saliva samples were collected and the participants completed several self-reported mental health questionnaires, as well as a 7-day food diary. They also took the socially evaluated cold-pressor test (SECPT) to measure acute stress responses.

Results showed that total daily energy intake decreased significantly in both the diet and control groups over the study period (P = .04 for both) but did not differ significantly between the groups.

In contrast, dietary fiber intake increased significantly in the diet group (P < .001) and was significantly higher than in the control group at the end of the intervention (P = .03).

Individuals in the diet group showed significant decreases in scores on the Perceived Stress Scale (P = .002) and the Beck Depression Inventory (P = .007) during the study, an effect that was not found in the control group.
 

Dietary intervention

There were no significant effects of diet on the acute stress response, but both groups showed improvements in self-concept, or perceived ability to cope, on the Primary Appraisal, Secondary Appraisal index (P = .03 for the diet group, P = .04 for the control group).

The results show that a dietary intervention targeted at the microbiota “can improve subjective feelings of stress and depression in a healthy population,” the investigators wrote.

However, elucidating the “contribution of the microbiota-gut-brain axis on the signaling response to dietary interventions” will require further studies on microbiota sequencing and biological measures of stress, they added.

This will “contribute to the understanding of the benefits of a psychobiotic diet on stress and anxiety,” wrote the researchers.

Dr. Berding said in an interview that while the consumption of dietary fiber changed the most in the diet group, “it would not be the only nutrient” that had an impact on the results, with fermented foods a likely candidate.

She said the next step is to test the dietary intervention in patients with MDD; however, “doing nutritional interventions in diseased populations is always difficult.”

Dr. Berding suggested that the best approach would be to study inpatients in a clinic, as “we would be able to provide every meal and only provide foods that are part of the dietary intervention.”

Although another option would be to conduct the study in outpatients, she noted that assessing inpatients “would give us the best control over compliance.”
 

“Brilliant ideas”

Commenting on the findings, Sergueï Fetissov, MD, PhD, professor of physiology at Rouen University, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said that although both studies bring attention to a possible role for the gut microbiota in MDD, neither “provide any experimental evidence of a causative nature.”

Dr. Fetissov, who was not involved in either study, noted that this topic has been the subject of clinical nutritional research for many years.

However, “we still need some strong evidence to prove that some bacteria can influence the regulation of mood and anxiety and stress,” he said.

In addition, researchers currently do not know what actually causes MDD. “How we can say the gut bacteria regulates something if we don’t know what really causes the altered mood?” said Dr. Fetissov.

He noted that over the last 50 years, there have been great advances in the development of drugs that alleviate depression and anxiety by regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters. However, it is still unknown whether these reflect primary or secondary aspects of mood disorders.

Furthermore, it is not clear “how probiotics to bacteria can influence these neuronal pathways,” he said.

“The ideas are brilliant and I support them ... but we have to provide proof,” Dr. Fetissov concluded.

The research by Dr. Berding and colleagues is funded by a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Irish Research Council. The study authors and Dr. Fetissov have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The gut microbiota differs significantly between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and healthy individuals and may be modifiable with a probiotic diet to improve stress and depression scores, two new studies suggest.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

In one study, investigators compared stool samples between patients with MDD and healthy controls. They found significant differences in bacterial profiles between the two groups, as well as between patients who responded vs those who were resistant to treatment.

“This finding further supports the relevance of an altered composition of the gut microbiota in the etiopathogenesis of MDD and suggests a role in response to antidepressants,” coinvestigator Andrea Fontana, MSc, Fondazione IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, said in an interview.

Results from the second study showed significant improvements in self-reported stress, anxiety, and depression scores in healthy individuals following a “psychobiotic” diet (using probiotics or prebiotics to manipulate the microbiota to improve mental health) that was rich in fruit, vegetables, and fermented foods vs. those who received dietary advice alone.

The investigators, led by Kirsten Berding, PhD, APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Ireland, now plan on testing their psychobiotic diet in patients with MDD and hope the findings could be helpful in “the development of adjuvant therapeutic opportunities” where pharmacologic treatment is not effective.

Both studies were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A “hallmark” of major depression

Mr. Fontana and colleagues note that the mostly suboptimal response to pharmacologic treatments among patients with MDD is one of the factors that “contributes to the large socioeconomic burden” of the disease.

Previous research shows patients with MDD have gut dysbiosis, or an imbalance in the natural flora; that antidepressants have antimicrobial properties; and that probiotics have an antibiotic effect. However, the correlation between the composition of the gut microbiota and antidepressant response is poorly understood.

The investigators recruited 34 patients with MDD (aged 18-70 years) who were in a euthymic phase and who did not have comorbid conditions that could affect the gut microbiota.

Eight patients were treatment resistant, defined as a poor response to at least two adequate trials of different antidepressant classes, while 19 were treatment responsive and seven were treatment naive.

The researchers also recruited 20 healthy individuals via word of mouth to act as the control group. There were no significant differences between patients and the control group in terms of baseline characteristics.

Genomic sequencing of bacteria obtained from stool samples showed that it was possible to distinguish between patients with MDD and the healthy individuals, especially at the family, genus, and species levels.

In particular, there were significant differences in the Paenibacillaceae and Flavobacteriaceaea families, for the genus Fenollaria, and the species Flintibacter butyricus, Christensenella timonensis, and Eisenbergiella massiliensis, among others.

Results also showed that the phyla Proteobacteria, Tenericutes, and the family Peptostreptococcaceae were more common in patients with treatment-resistant MDD, whereas the phylum Actinobacteria was more abundant in treatment responders.

Moreover, several bacteria were found only in the microbiota of patients with treatment-resistant MDD, while others were seen only in treatment-responsive patients. This made it possible to discriminate not only between treatment-resistant and -responsive patients but also between those two patient groups and healthy controls.

“The results of our study confirm that gut dysbiosis is a hallmark of MDD, and suggests that the gut microbiota of patients with treatment-resistant MDD significantly differs from responders to antidepressants,” Mr. Fontana said.
 

Psychobiotic diet

For the second study, Dr. Berding and colleagues note that “psychobiotics” has previously achieved “promising results.”

In addition, diet is both “one of the most influential modifying factors” for the gut microbiota and an easily accessible strategy, they wrote. However, there is also a paucity of studies in this area, they added.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy volunteers with relatively poor dietary habits to either a 4-week psychobiotic diet group (n = 21) or a control group (n = 19).

Courtesy National Cancer Institute

Individuals in the psychobiotic group were told to eat a diet rich in prebiotics, such as fruit and vegetables, fiber including whole grains and legumes, and fermented foods. The control group was educated on Irish healthy-eating guidelines.

Stool and saliva samples were collected and the participants completed several self-reported mental health questionnaires, as well as a 7-day food diary. They also took the socially evaluated cold-pressor test (SECPT) to measure acute stress responses.

Results showed that total daily energy intake decreased significantly in both the diet and control groups over the study period (P = .04 for both) but did not differ significantly between the groups.

In contrast, dietary fiber intake increased significantly in the diet group (P < .001) and was significantly higher than in the control group at the end of the intervention (P = .03).

Individuals in the diet group showed significant decreases in scores on the Perceived Stress Scale (P = .002) and the Beck Depression Inventory (P = .007) during the study, an effect that was not found in the control group.
 

Dietary intervention

There were no significant effects of diet on the acute stress response, but both groups showed improvements in self-concept, or perceived ability to cope, on the Primary Appraisal, Secondary Appraisal index (P = .03 for the diet group, P = .04 for the control group).

The results show that a dietary intervention targeted at the microbiota “can improve subjective feelings of stress and depression in a healthy population,” the investigators wrote.

However, elucidating the “contribution of the microbiota-gut-brain axis on the signaling response to dietary interventions” will require further studies on microbiota sequencing and biological measures of stress, they added.

This will “contribute to the understanding of the benefits of a psychobiotic diet on stress and anxiety,” wrote the researchers.

Dr. Berding said in an interview that while the consumption of dietary fiber changed the most in the diet group, “it would not be the only nutrient” that had an impact on the results, with fermented foods a likely candidate.

She said the next step is to test the dietary intervention in patients with MDD; however, “doing nutritional interventions in diseased populations is always difficult.”

Dr. Berding suggested that the best approach would be to study inpatients in a clinic, as “we would be able to provide every meal and only provide foods that are part of the dietary intervention.”

Although another option would be to conduct the study in outpatients, she noted that assessing inpatients “would give us the best control over compliance.”
 

“Brilliant ideas”

Commenting on the findings, Sergueï Fetissov, MD, PhD, professor of physiology at Rouen University, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said that although both studies bring attention to a possible role for the gut microbiota in MDD, neither “provide any experimental evidence of a causative nature.”

Dr. Fetissov, who was not involved in either study, noted that this topic has been the subject of clinical nutritional research for many years.

However, “we still need some strong evidence to prove that some bacteria can influence the regulation of mood and anxiety and stress,” he said.

In addition, researchers currently do not know what actually causes MDD. “How we can say the gut bacteria regulates something if we don’t know what really causes the altered mood?” said Dr. Fetissov.

He noted that over the last 50 years, there have been great advances in the development of drugs that alleviate depression and anxiety by regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters. However, it is still unknown whether these reflect primary or secondary aspects of mood disorders.

Furthermore, it is not clear “how probiotics to bacteria can influence these neuronal pathways,” he said.

“The ideas are brilliant and I support them ... but we have to provide proof,” Dr. Fetissov concluded.

The research by Dr. Berding and colleagues is funded by a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Irish Research Council. The study authors and Dr. Fetissov have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anthony Fauci, MD, highlighting the latest COVID-19 developments on Friday, said, “It is now clear that about 40%-45% of infections are asymptomatic.”

NIH

Asymptomatic carriers can account for a large proportion — up to 50% — of virus transmissions, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a virtual crowd of critical care clinicians gathered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Such transmissions have made response strategies, such as contact tracing, extremely difficult, he said.

Lew Kaplan, MD, president of SCCM, told Medscape Medical News after the presentation: “That really supports the universal wearing of masks and the capstone message from that – you should protect one another.

“That kind of social responsibility that sits within the public health domain to me is as important as the vaccine candidates and the science behind the receptors. It underpins the necessary relationship and the interdependence of the medical community with the public,” Kaplan added.

Fauci’s plenary led the SCCM’s conference, “COVID-19: What’s Next/Preparing for the Second Wave,” running today and Saturday.
 

Why U.S. response lags behind Spain and Italy

“This virus has literally exploded upon the planet in a pandemic manner which is unparalleled to anything we’ve seen in the last 102 years since the pandemic of 1918,” Fauci said.

“Unfortunately, the United States has been hit harder than any other country in the world, with 6 million reported cases.”

He explained that in the European Union countries the disease spiked early on and returned to a low baseline. “Unfortunately for them,” Fauci said, “as they’re trying to open up their economy, it’s coming back up.”

The United States, he explained, plateaued at about 20,000 cases a day, then a surge of cases in Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona brought the cases to 70,000 a day. Now cases have returned to 35,000-40,000 a day.

The difference in the trajectory of the response, he said, is that, compared with Spain and Italy for example, the United States has not shut down mobility in parks, outdoor spaces, and grocery stores nearly as much as some European countries did.

He pointed to numerous clusters of cases, spread from social or work gatherings, including the well-known Skagit County Washington state choir practice in March, in which a symptomatic choir member infected 87% of the 61 people rehearsing.
 

Vaccine by end of the year

As for a vaccine timeline, Fauci told SCCM members, “We project that by the end of this year, namely November/December, we will know if we have a safe and effective vaccine and we are cautiously optimistic that we will be successful, based on promising data in the animal model as well as good immunological data that we see from the phase 1 and phase 2 trials.”

However, also on Friday, Fauci told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that a sense of normalcy is not likely before the middle of next year.

“By the time you mobilize the distribution of the vaccinations, and you get the majority, or more, of the population vaccinated and protected, that’s likely not going to happen [until] the mid- or end of 2021,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case tracker, as of Thursday, COVID-19 had resulted in more than 190,000 deaths overall and more than 256,000 new cases in the United States in the past 7 days.

Fauci has warned that the next few months will be critical in the virus’ trajectory, with the double onslaught of COVID-19 and the flu season.

On Thursday, Fauci said, “We need to hunker down and get through this fall and winter because it’s not going to be easy.”

Fauci remains a top trusted source in COVID-19 information, poll numbers show.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that 68% of US adults had a fair amount or a great deal of trust that Fauci would provide reliable information on COVID-19, just slightly more that the 67% who said they trust the CDC information. About half (53%) say they trust Deborah Birx, MD, the coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, as a reliable source of information.

The poll also found that 54% of Americans said they would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if one was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before the November election and was made available and free to all who wanted it.

Kaplan and Fauci report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Anthony Fauci, MD, highlighting the latest COVID-19 developments on Friday, said, “It is now clear that about 40%-45% of infections are asymptomatic.”

NIH

Asymptomatic carriers can account for a large proportion — up to 50% — of virus transmissions, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a virtual crowd of critical care clinicians gathered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Such transmissions have made response strategies, such as contact tracing, extremely difficult, he said.

Lew Kaplan, MD, president of SCCM, told Medscape Medical News after the presentation: “That really supports the universal wearing of masks and the capstone message from that – you should protect one another.

“That kind of social responsibility that sits within the public health domain to me is as important as the vaccine candidates and the science behind the receptors. It underpins the necessary relationship and the interdependence of the medical community with the public,” Kaplan added.

Fauci’s plenary led the SCCM’s conference, “COVID-19: What’s Next/Preparing for the Second Wave,” running today and Saturday.
 

Why U.S. response lags behind Spain and Italy

“This virus has literally exploded upon the planet in a pandemic manner which is unparalleled to anything we’ve seen in the last 102 years since the pandemic of 1918,” Fauci said.

“Unfortunately, the United States has been hit harder than any other country in the world, with 6 million reported cases.”

He explained that in the European Union countries the disease spiked early on and returned to a low baseline. “Unfortunately for them,” Fauci said, “as they’re trying to open up their economy, it’s coming back up.”

The United States, he explained, plateaued at about 20,000 cases a day, then a surge of cases in Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona brought the cases to 70,000 a day. Now cases have returned to 35,000-40,000 a day.

The difference in the trajectory of the response, he said, is that, compared with Spain and Italy for example, the United States has not shut down mobility in parks, outdoor spaces, and grocery stores nearly as much as some European countries did.

He pointed to numerous clusters of cases, spread from social or work gatherings, including the well-known Skagit County Washington state choir practice in March, in which a symptomatic choir member infected 87% of the 61 people rehearsing.
 

Vaccine by end of the year

As for a vaccine timeline, Fauci told SCCM members, “We project that by the end of this year, namely November/December, we will know if we have a safe and effective vaccine and we are cautiously optimistic that we will be successful, based on promising data in the animal model as well as good immunological data that we see from the phase 1 and phase 2 trials.”

However, also on Friday, Fauci told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that a sense of normalcy is not likely before the middle of next year.

“By the time you mobilize the distribution of the vaccinations, and you get the majority, or more, of the population vaccinated and protected, that’s likely not going to happen [until] the mid- or end of 2021,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case tracker, as of Thursday, COVID-19 had resulted in more than 190,000 deaths overall and more than 256,000 new cases in the United States in the past 7 days.

Fauci has warned that the next few months will be critical in the virus’ trajectory, with the double onslaught of COVID-19 and the flu season.

On Thursday, Fauci said, “We need to hunker down and get through this fall and winter because it’s not going to be easy.”

Fauci remains a top trusted source in COVID-19 information, poll numbers show.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that 68% of US adults had a fair amount or a great deal of trust that Fauci would provide reliable information on COVID-19, just slightly more that the 67% who said they trust the CDC information. About half (53%) say they trust Deborah Birx, MD, the coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, as a reliable source of information.

The poll also found that 54% of Americans said they would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if one was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before the November election and was made available and free to all who wanted it.

Kaplan and Fauci report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Anthony Fauci, MD, highlighting the latest COVID-19 developments on Friday, said, “It is now clear that about 40%-45% of infections are asymptomatic.”

NIH

Asymptomatic carriers can account for a large proportion — up to 50% — of virus transmissions, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a virtual crowd of critical care clinicians gathered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Such transmissions have made response strategies, such as contact tracing, extremely difficult, he said.

Lew Kaplan, MD, president of SCCM, told Medscape Medical News after the presentation: “That really supports the universal wearing of masks and the capstone message from that – you should protect one another.

“That kind of social responsibility that sits within the public health domain to me is as important as the vaccine candidates and the science behind the receptors. It underpins the necessary relationship and the interdependence of the medical community with the public,” Kaplan added.

Fauci’s plenary led the SCCM’s conference, “COVID-19: What’s Next/Preparing for the Second Wave,” running today and Saturday.
 

Why U.S. response lags behind Spain and Italy

“This virus has literally exploded upon the planet in a pandemic manner which is unparalleled to anything we’ve seen in the last 102 years since the pandemic of 1918,” Fauci said.

“Unfortunately, the United States has been hit harder than any other country in the world, with 6 million reported cases.”

He explained that in the European Union countries the disease spiked early on and returned to a low baseline. “Unfortunately for them,” Fauci said, “as they’re trying to open up their economy, it’s coming back up.”

The United States, he explained, plateaued at about 20,000 cases a day, then a surge of cases in Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona brought the cases to 70,000 a day. Now cases have returned to 35,000-40,000 a day.

The difference in the trajectory of the response, he said, is that, compared with Spain and Italy for example, the United States has not shut down mobility in parks, outdoor spaces, and grocery stores nearly as much as some European countries did.

He pointed to numerous clusters of cases, spread from social or work gatherings, including the well-known Skagit County Washington state choir practice in March, in which a symptomatic choir member infected 87% of the 61 people rehearsing.
 

Vaccine by end of the year

As for a vaccine timeline, Fauci told SCCM members, “We project that by the end of this year, namely November/December, we will know if we have a safe and effective vaccine and we are cautiously optimistic that we will be successful, based on promising data in the animal model as well as good immunological data that we see from the phase 1 and phase 2 trials.”

However, also on Friday, Fauci told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that a sense of normalcy is not likely before the middle of next year.

“By the time you mobilize the distribution of the vaccinations, and you get the majority, or more, of the population vaccinated and protected, that’s likely not going to happen [until] the mid- or end of 2021,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case tracker, as of Thursday, COVID-19 had resulted in more than 190,000 deaths overall and more than 256,000 new cases in the United States in the past 7 days.

Fauci has warned that the next few months will be critical in the virus’ trajectory, with the double onslaught of COVID-19 and the flu season.

On Thursday, Fauci said, “We need to hunker down and get through this fall and winter because it’s not going to be easy.”

Fauci remains a top trusted source in COVID-19 information, poll numbers show.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that 68% of US adults had a fair amount or a great deal of trust that Fauci would provide reliable information on COVID-19, just slightly more that the 67% who said they trust the CDC information. About half (53%) say they trust Deborah Birx, MD, the coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, as a reliable source of information.

The poll also found that 54% of Americans said they would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if one was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before the November election and was made available and free to all who wanted it.

Kaplan and Fauci report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A few months ago, I published a short thought piece on the use of “sitters” with patients who were COVID-19 positive, or patients under investigation. In it, I recommended the use of telesitters for those who normally would warrant a human sitter, to decrease the discomfort of sitting in full personal protective equipment (PPE) (gown, mask, gloves, etc.) while monitoring a suicidal patient.

I received several queries, which I want to address here. In addition, I want to draw from my Army days in terms of the claustrophobia often experienced with PPE.

The first of the questions was about evidence-based practices. The second was about the discomfort of having sitters sit for many hours in the full gear.

I do not know of any evidence-based practices, but I hope we will develop them.

I agree that spending many hours in full PPE can be discomforting, which is why I wrote the essay.

As far as lessons learned from the Army time, I briefly learned how to wear a “gas mask” or Mission-Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP gear) while at Fort Bragg. We were run through the “gas chamber,” where sergeants released tear gas while we had the mask on. We were then asked to lift it up, and then tearing and sputtering, we could leave the small wooden building.

We wore the mask as part of our Army gear, usually on the right leg. After that, I mainly used the protective mask in its bag as a pillow when I was in the field.

Fast forward to August 1990. I arrived at Camp Casey, near the Korean demilitarized zone. Four days later, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The gas mask moved from a pillow to something we had to wear while doing 12-mile road marches in “full ruck.” In full ruck, you have your uniform on, with TA-50, knapsack, and weapon. No, I do not remember any more what TA-50 stands for, but essentially it is the webbing that holds your bullets and bandages.

Many could not tolerate it. They developed claustrophobia – sweating, air hunger, and panic. If stationed in the Gulf for Operation Desert Storm, they were evacuated home.

I wrote a couple of short articles on treatment of gas mask phobia.^1,2 I basically advised desensitization. Start by watching TV in it for 5 minutes. Graduate to ironing your uniform in the mask. Go then to shorter runs. Work up to the 12-mile road march.

In my second tour in Korea, we had exercises where we simulated being hit by nerve agents and had to operate the hospital for days at a time in partial or full PPE. It was tough but we did it, and felt more confident about surviving attacks from North Korea.

So back to the pandemic present. I have gotten more used to my constant wearing of a surgical mask. I get anxious when I see others with masks below their noses. I almost panic when others do not wear their masks at all, such as the lady today who was brushing her teeth in the shared ladies’ restroom.

The pandemic is not going away anytime soon, in my opinion. Furthermore, there are other viruses that are worse, such as Ebola. It is only a matter of time.

So, let us train with our PPE. If health care workers cannot tolerate them, use desensitization- and anxiety-reducing techniques to help them.

There are no easy answers here, in the time of the COVID pandemic. However, we owe it to ourselves, our patients, and society to do the best we can.

References

1. Ritchie EC. Milit Med. 1992 Feb;157(2):104-6.

2. Ritchie EC. Milit Med. 2001 Dec;166. Suppl. 2(1)83-4.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

A few months ago, I published a short thought piece on the use of “sitters” with patients who were COVID-19 positive, or patients under investigation. In it, I recommended the use of telesitters for those who normally would warrant a human sitter, to decrease the discomfort of sitting in full personal protective equipment (PPE) (gown, mask, gloves, etc.) while monitoring a suicidal patient.

I received several queries, which I want to address here. In addition, I want to draw from my Army days in terms of the claustrophobia often experienced with PPE.

The first of the questions was about evidence-based practices. The second was about the discomfort of having sitters sit for many hours in the full gear.

I do not know of any evidence-based practices, but I hope we will develop them.

I agree that spending many hours in full PPE can be discomforting, which is why I wrote the essay.

As far as lessons learned from the Army time, I briefly learned how to wear a “gas mask” or Mission-Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP gear) while at Fort Bragg. We were run through the “gas chamber,” where sergeants released tear gas while we had the mask on. We were then asked to lift it up, and then tearing and sputtering, we could leave the small wooden building.

We wore the mask as part of our Army gear, usually on the right leg. After that, I mainly used the protective mask in its bag as a pillow when I was in the field.

Fast forward to August 1990. I arrived at Camp Casey, near the Korean demilitarized zone. Four days later, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The gas mask moved from a pillow to something we had to wear while doing 12-mile road marches in “full ruck.” In full ruck, you have your uniform on, with TA-50, knapsack, and weapon. No, I do not remember any more what TA-50 stands for, but essentially it is the webbing that holds your bullets and bandages.

Many could not tolerate it. They developed claustrophobia – sweating, air hunger, and panic. If stationed in the Gulf for Operation Desert Storm, they were evacuated home.

I wrote a couple of short articles on treatment of gas mask phobia.^1,2 I basically advised desensitization. Start by watching TV in it for 5 minutes. Graduate to ironing your uniform in the mask. Go then to shorter runs. Work up to the 12-mile road march.

In my second tour in Korea, we had exercises where we simulated being hit by nerve agents and had to operate the hospital for days at a time in partial or full PPE. It was tough but we did it, and felt more confident about surviving attacks from North Korea.

So back to the pandemic present. I have gotten more used to my constant wearing of a surgical mask. I get anxious when I see others with masks below their noses. I almost panic when others do not wear their masks at all, such as the lady today who was brushing her teeth in the shared ladies’ restroom.

The pandemic is not going away anytime soon, in my opinion. Furthermore, there are other viruses that are worse, such as Ebola. It is only a matter of time.

So, let us train with our PPE. If health care workers cannot tolerate them, use desensitization- and anxiety-reducing techniques to help them.

There are no easy answers here, in the time of the COVID pandemic. However, we owe it to ourselves, our patients, and society to do the best we can.

References

1. Ritchie EC. Milit Med. 1992 Feb;157(2):104-6.

2. Ritchie EC. Milit Med. 2001 Dec;166. Suppl. 2(1)83-4.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

A few months ago, I published a short thought piece on the use of “sitters” with patients who were COVID-19 positive, or patients under investigation. In it, I recommended the use of telesitters for those who normally would warrant a human sitter, to decrease the discomfort of sitting in full personal protective equipment (PPE) (gown, mask, gloves, etc.) while monitoring a suicidal patient.

I received several queries, which I want to address here. In addition, I want to draw from my Army days in terms of the claustrophobia often experienced with PPE.

The first of the questions was about evidence-based practices. The second was about the discomfort of having sitters sit for many hours in the full gear.

I do not know of any evidence-based practices, but I hope we will develop them.

I agree that spending many hours in full PPE can be discomforting, which is why I wrote the essay.

As far as lessons learned from the Army time, I briefly learned how to wear a “gas mask” or Mission-Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP gear) while at Fort Bragg. We were run through the “gas chamber,” where sergeants released tear gas while we had the mask on. We were then asked to lift it up, and then tearing and sputtering, we could leave the small wooden building.

We wore the mask as part of our Army gear, usually on the right leg. After that, I mainly used the protective mask in its bag as a pillow when I was in the field.

Fast forward to August 1990. I arrived at Camp Casey, near the Korean demilitarized zone. Four days later, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The gas mask moved from a pillow to something we had to wear while doing 12-mile road marches in “full ruck.” In full ruck, you have your uniform on, with TA-50, knapsack, and weapon. No, I do not remember any more what TA-50 stands for, but essentially it is the webbing that holds your bullets and bandages.

Many could not tolerate it. They developed claustrophobia – sweating, air hunger, and panic. If stationed in the Gulf for Operation Desert Storm, they were evacuated home.

I wrote a couple of short articles on treatment of gas mask phobia.^1,2 I basically advised desensitization. Start by watching TV in it for 5 minutes. Graduate to ironing your uniform in the mask. Go then to shorter runs. Work up to the 12-mile road march.

In my second tour in Korea, we had exercises where we simulated being hit by nerve agents and had to operate the hospital for days at a time in partial or full PPE. It was tough but we did it, and felt more confident about surviving attacks from North Korea.

So back to the pandemic present. I have gotten more used to my constant wearing of a surgical mask. I get anxious when I see others with masks below their noses. I almost panic when others do not wear their masks at all, such as the lady today who was brushing her teeth in the shared ladies’ restroom.

The pandemic is not going away anytime soon, in my opinion. Furthermore, there are other viruses that are worse, such as Ebola. It is only a matter of time.

So, let us train with our PPE. If health care workers cannot tolerate them, use desensitization- and anxiety-reducing techniques to help them.

There are no easy answers here, in the time of the COVID pandemic. However, we owe it to ourselves, our patients, and society to do the best we can.

References

1. Ritchie EC. Milit Med. 1992 Feb;157(2):104-6.

2. Ritchie EC. Milit Med. 2001 Dec;166. Suppl. 2(1)83-4.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. – Josh Billings
 

Some patients believe COVID-19 is a hoax. Many think there’s truth to the rumor that Bill Gates is behind it all and intends to use COVID vaccinations as a devious way to implant microchips in us. He will then, of course, use the new 5G towers to track us all (although what Gates will do with the information that I was shopping at a Trader Joe’s yesterday is yet unknown).

It’s easy to dismiss patients with these beliefs as nuts or dumb or both. They’re neither, they’re just human. Conspiracy theories have been shared from the first time two humans met. They are, after all, simply hypotheses to explain an experience that’s difficult to understand. Making up a story to explain things feels safer than living with the unknown, and so we do. Our natural tendency to be suspicious makes conspiracy hypotheses more salient and more likely to spread. The pandemic itself is exacerbating this problem: People are alone and afraid, and dependent on social media for connection. Add a compelling story about a nefarious robber baron plotting to exploit us and you’ve got the conditions for conspiracy theories to explode like wind-driven wildfires. Astonishingly, a Pew Research poll showed 36% of Americans surveyed who have heard something about it say the Bill Gates cabal theory is “probably” or “definitely” true.

That many patients fervently believe conspiracy theories poses several problems for us. First, when a vaccine does become available, some patients will refuse to be vaccinated. The consequences to their health and the health of the community are grave. Secondly, whenever patients have cause to distrust doctors, it makes our jobs more challenging. If they don’t trust us on vaccines, it can spread to not trusting us about wearing masks or sunscreens or taking statins. Lastly, it’s near impossible to have a friendly conversation with a patient carrying forth on why Bill Gates is not in jail or how I’m part of the medical-industrial complex enabling him. Sheesh.

It isn’t their fault. The underpinning of these beliefs can be understood as a cognitive bias. In this case, an idea that is easy to imagine or recall is believed to be true more than an idea that is complex and difficult. Understanding viral replication and R0 numbers or viral vectors and protein subunit vaccines is hard. Imagining a chip being injected into your arm is easy. And, as behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman opined, we humans possess an almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance. We physicians can help in a way that friends and family members can’t. Here are ways you can help patients who believe in conspiracy theories:

Approach this problem like any other infirmity, with compassion. No one wants to drink too much and knock out their teeth falling off a bike. It was a mistake. Similarly, when people are steeped in self-delusion, it’s not a misdeed, it’s a lapse. Be kind and respectful.

Meet them where they are. It might be helpful to state with sincerity: So you feel that there is a government plot to use COVID to track us? Have you considered that might not be true?

Have the conversation in private. Harder even than being wrong is being publicly wrong.

Try the Socratic method. (We’re pretty good at this from teaching students and residents.) Conspiracy-believing patients have the illusion of knowledge, yet, like students, it’s often easy to show them their gaps. Do so gently by leading them to discover for themselves.

Stop when you stall. You cannot change someone’s mind by dint of force. However, you surely can damage your relationship if you keep pushing them.

Don’t worry if you fail to break through; you might yet have moved them a bit. This might make it possible for them to discover the truth later. Or, you could simply switch to explain what holds up the ground we walk upon. There’s rumor we’re supported on the backs of turtles, all the way down. Maybe Bill Gates is feeding them.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. – Josh Billings
 

Some patients believe COVID-19 is a hoax. Many think there’s truth to the rumor that Bill Gates is behind it all and intends to use COVID vaccinations as a devious way to implant microchips in us. He will then, of course, use the new 5G towers to track us all (although what Gates will do with the information that I was shopping at a Trader Joe’s yesterday is yet unknown).

It’s easy to dismiss patients with these beliefs as nuts or dumb or both. They’re neither, they’re just human. Conspiracy theories have been shared from the first time two humans met. They are, after all, simply hypotheses to explain an experience that’s difficult to understand. Making up a story to explain things feels safer than living with the unknown, and so we do. Our natural tendency to be suspicious makes conspiracy hypotheses more salient and more likely to spread. The pandemic itself is exacerbating this problem: People are alone and afraid, and dependent on social media for connection. Add a compelling story about a nefarious robber baron plotting to exploit us and you’ve got the conditions for conspiracy theories to explode like wind-driven wildfires. Astonishingly, a Pew Research poll showed 36% of Americans surveyed who have heard something about it say the Bill Gates cabal theory is “probably” or “definitely” true.

That many patients fervently believe conspiracy theories poses several problems for us. First, when a vaccine does become available, some patients will refuse to be vaccinated. The consequences to their health and the health of the community are grave. Secondly, whenever patients have cause to distrust doctors, it makes our jobs more challenging. If they don’t trust us on vaccines, it can spread to not trusting us about wearing masks or sunscreens or taking statins. Lastly, it’s near impossible to have a friendly conversation with a patient carrying forth on why Bill Gates is not in jail or how I’m part of the medical-industrial complex enabling him. Sheesh.

It isn’t their fault. The underpinning of these beliefs can be understood as a cognitive bias. In this case, an idea that is easy to imagine or recall is believed to be true more than an idea that is complex and difficult. Understanding viral replication and R0 numbers or viral vectors and protein subunit vaccines is hard. Imagining a chip being injected into your arm is easy. And, as behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman opined, we humans possess an almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance. We physicians can help in a way that friends and family members can’t. Here are ways you can help patients who believe in conspiracy theories:

Approach this problem like any other infirmity, with compassion. No one wants to drink too much and knock out their teeth falling off a bike. It was a mistake. Similarly, when people are steeped in self-delusion, it’s not a misdeed, it’s a lapse. Be kind and respectful.

Meet them where they are. It might be helpful to state with sincerity: So you feel that there is a government plot to use COVID to track us? Have you considered that might not be true?

Have the conversation in private. Harder even than being wrong is being publicly wrong.

Try the Socratic method. (We’re pretty good at this from teaching students and residents.) Conspiracy-believing patients have the illusion of knowledge, yet, like students, it’s often easy to show them their gaps. Do so gently by leading them to discover for themselves.

Stop when you stall. You cannot change someone’s mind by dint of force. However, you surely can damage your relationship if you keep pushing them.

Don’t worry if you fail to break through; you might yet have moved them a bit. This might make it possible for them to discover the truth later. Or, you could simply switch to explain what holds up the ground we walk upon. There’s rumor we’re supported on the backs of turtles, all the way down. Maybe Bill Gates is feeding them.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. – Josh Billings
 

Some patients believe COVID-19 is a hoax. Many think there’s truth to the rumor that Bill Gates is behind it all and intends to use COVID vaccinations as a devious way to implant microchips in us. He will then, of course, use the new 5G towers to track us all (although what Gates will do with the information that I was shopping at a Trader Joe’s yesterday is yet unknown).

It’s easy to dismiss patients with these beliefs as nuts or dumb or both. They’re neither, they’re just human. Conspiracy theories have been shared from the first time two humans met. They are, after all, simply hypotheses to explain an experience that’s difficult to understand. Making up a story to explain things feels safer than living with the unknown, and so we do. Our natural tendency to be suspicious makes conspiracy hypotheses more salient and more likely to spread. The pandemic itself is exacerbating this problem: People are alone and afraid, and dependent on social media for connection. Add a compelling story about a nefarious robber baron plotting to exploit us and you’ve got the conditions for conspiracy theories to explode like wind-driven wildfires. Astonishingly, a Pew Research poll showed 36% of Americans surveyed who have heard something about it say the Bill Gates cabal theory is “probably” or “definitely” true.

That many patients fervently believe conspiracy theories poses several problems for us. First, when a vaccine does become available, some patients will refuse to be vaccinated. The consequences to their health and the health of the community are grave. Secondly, whenever patients have cause to distrust doctors, it makes our jobs more challenging. If they don’t trust us on vaccines, it can spread to not trusting us about wearing masks or sunscreens or taking statins. Lastly, it’s near impossible to have a friendly conversation with a patient carrying forth on why Bill Gates is not in jail or how I’m part of the medical-industrial complex enabling him. Sheesh.

It isn’t their fault. The underpinning of these beliefs can be understood as a cognitive bias. In this case, an idea that is easy to imagine or recall is believed to be true more than an idea that is complex and difficult. Understanding viral replication and R0 numbers or viral vectors and protein subunit vaccines is hard. Imagining a chip being injected into your arm is easy. And, as behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman opined, we humans possess an almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance. We physicians can help in a way that friends and family members can’t. Here are ways you can help patients who believe in conspiracy theories:

Approach this problem like any other infirmity, with compassion. No one wants to drink too much and knock out their teeth falling off a bike. It was a mistake. Similarly, when people are steeped in self-delusion, it’s not a misdeed, it’s a lapse. Be kind and respectful.

Meet them where they are. It might be helpful to state with sincerity: So you feel that there is a government plot to use COVID to track us? Have you considered that might not be true?

Have the conversation in private. Harder even than being wrong is being publicly wrong.

Try the Socratic method. (We’re pretty good at this from teaching students and residents.) Conspiracy-believing patients have the illusion of knowledge, yet, like students, it’s often easy to show them their gaps. Do so gently by leading them to discover for themselves.

Stop when you stall. You cannot change someone’s mind by dint of force. However, you surely can damage your relationship if you keep pushing them.

Don’t worry if you fail to break through; you might yet have moved them a bit. This might make it possible for them to discover the truth later. Or, you could simply switch to explain what holds up the ground we walk upon. There’s rumor we’re supported on the backs of turtles, all the way down. Maybe Bill Gates is feeding them.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.

In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.

Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.

‘Shadow pandemic?’

The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.

“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.

The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.

IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.

Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.

Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
 

First peek

Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.

The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).

Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.

Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.

“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
 

Lethality indicators

Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.

“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.

“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”

She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”

Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.

“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.

She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.

“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.

Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.

In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.

Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.

‘Shadow pandemic?’

The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.

“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.

The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.

IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.

Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.

Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
 

First peek

Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.

The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).

Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.

Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.

“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
 

Lethality indicators

Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.

“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.

“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”

She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”

Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.

“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.

She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.

“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.

Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.

In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.

Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.

‘Shadow pandemic?’

The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.

“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.

The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.

IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.

Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.

Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
 

First peek

Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.

The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).

Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.

Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.

“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
 

Lethality indicators

Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.

“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.

“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”

She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”

Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.

“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.

She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.

“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.

Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psychological First Aid is an innovative program launched by the American Red Cross with the goal of addressing issues of concern such as those stemming from COVID-19–related stress. According to Red Cross mental health volunteer representative Deb Butman-Perkins, the program provides “a general overview of what does stress look like, how do we feel it, how do we recognize it in our bodies ... physical, emotional, spiritual, physiological, where does all that stress occur?”¹

The program brings a spotlight to the interdisciplinary nature of the stress response, especially with respect to the importance of developing the necessary coping skills during an ongoing crisis. However, to effectively evaluate and manage the overall stress response for psychiatric patients during quarantine conditions, as well as those who are formally diagnosed with COVID-19, clinicians also will need to revisit what we’ve learned about the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.

We know that the stress response – which varies somewhat across the spectrum – is necessary to ensure homeostatic regulation. A feedback loop is initiated at the receptor level, involving a myriad of hormones and chemical signals that bring forth the body’s “flight-or-fight” response. Hormones such as epinephrine/norepinephrine and cortisol are secreted by the HPA axis in reaction to the stress response, resulting in a spike in heart rate, blood pressure, and transient hyperglycemia, respectively. In particular, hyperglycemia provides immediate energy to muscles during a perceived crisis.²

In addition, prolonged exposure to living in quarantine can lead to feelings of isolation and estrangement – and excessive anxiety. Combined, those conditions may exert an indelible effect on the HPA axis – leading to a warped pattern of cortisol secretion with respect to baseline.³ (It has been noted in the literature that serum cortisol plays a protective role in thwarting off the effects of PTSD development. Consistent with this line of thinking, military personnel have been preemptively treated with high-dose cortisol during acute exposure.)

Prolonged exposure to psychosocial stressors also increases the overall risk of developing medical comorbidities. Patients who adopt maladaptive responses to traumatic events, for example, may experience dysregulation in eating behaviors and/or disordered sleep.⁴

In light of those realities, clinicians should explore the role of steroid therapy as a means of treating mental health patients experiencing psychological stress formation tied to ongoing quarantine conditions.
 

Challenges of neuroendocrine medications for COVID-19

COVID-19, caused by exposure to SARS-CoV-2, adeptly leverages the ACE2 receptor of the lungs as an entry point to evade the host’s defenses. It should be noted that the ACE2 protein is expressed on the cells of multiple organs of the body, including the adrenals, which are largely responsible for coordinating the stress response of the HPA axis.

Postmortem analysis from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV is also from the Coronaviridae family) patients indicates the presence of necrotic adrenal cells, further solidifying the association of the HPA axis to the COVID-19 disease state and pathophysiological course.⁵ Molecular mimicry of the adrenocorticotropic hormone allows SARS-CoV the ability to infiltrate the host’s defenses, in particular, the ability to mount a clinically apt cortisol stress response (e.g., hypocortisolism).As for those who survived the 2003 SARS outbreak, less than half of the patients have been observed to develop symptoms of frank hypocortisolism within a few months after exposure.

The World Health Organization recently endorsed the use of steroid therapy for critically ill COVID-19 patients, and an ongoing clinical trial is evaluating the safety and efficacy parameters of corticosteroids in COVID-19–exposed patients.

In addition, there is reason to believe that application of prophylactic steroids might affect the overall clinical course of COVID-19, thereby reducing mortality and morbidity rates in patients with severe presentation, such as septic shock. The rationale for this line of thought is based on the ability of glucocorticoids to suppress an ensuing cytokine storm by the virus in question.^5,6 In clinical practice, steroids have been used to treat a host of viral diseases, including influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.

Aside from the selective use of corticosteroids, the medication regimen may incorporate ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) because of COVID-19’s ability to activate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with respect to the physiological stress response.

The interplay of the HPA axis with the sympathoadrenal system is responsible for adaptive behaviors in the individual. Disrupted feedback loops from prolonged activation are associated with numerous stress-based conditions in mental illness, namely, PTSD, anxiety, and mood disorders. We are concerned about frontline health care workers, who are particularly prone to chronic stress and burnout because of the cumbersome patient load and equipment shortage that have characterized the coronavirus crisis.

Timely administration of corticosteroids on a case-by-case basis would keep the cytokines at bay by precluding their undue activation of the HPA axis and corresponding cascade stress response. Steroids are also known to restore disrupted feedback loops at the level of the immune cells. However, because of conflicting reports concerning viral clearance in some SARS and COVID-19 studies, treatment with steroids may be limited to select patient populations with the necessary dose adjustments. Ongoing clinical trials will further elucidate upon the applicability of steroids as well as the role of other neuroendocrine agents, such as ACE inhibitors or ARBs, in the treatment of COVID-19.
 

Behavioral manifestations and psychosocial health

As far as the stress response is concerned, an analysis performed by researchers in China after the COVID-19 outbreak found gender disparities in symptom expression. In the study (n = 1,210) the researchers found in female citizens a greater frequency of behavioral manifestations, including acute stress reaction, and symptoms of anxiety and mood disorders – namely, depression.⁷ Patient perception and awareness of the perils of coronavirus typically varied across the spectrum; some individuals reportedly undermined and devalued their risk of contracting COVID-19 – these patients may benefit from therapeutic modalities, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), as a means of challenging their firmly entrenched cognitive distortions. CBT is an effective tool in addressing maladaptive coping responses, because these strategies tend to correspond with poor prognosis with respect to overall mental health. Aside from CBT, the clinician may advise other behavioral techniques, such as relaxation training, with the aim of controlling the symptoms of mood and anxiety disorders.

We often take for granted general pandemic safety precautions, such as maintaining physical distancing coupled with engaging in regular hand hygiene and wearing masks, but these actions also are known to alleviate mental anguish. Access to accurate and easy-to-consume health information regarding COVID-19 is also associated with psychological well-being during the quarantine.⁸

An intriguing “phenomenon” has emerged in the form of “panic buying.”However, researchers reported in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Human Behaviour that this pattern of behaviors is not typical for those under distress and represents an overstated misnomer of sorts. According to Jay J. Van Bavel, PhD, and associates, prevailing reports from news outlets have skewed the features of a panic. “News stories that employ the language of panic often create the very phenomena that they purport to condemn,” Dr. Van Bavel and associates wrote. “They can foster the very individualism and competitiveness that turn sensible preparations into dysfunctional stockpiling and undermine the sense of collective purpose which facilitates people supporting one another during an emergency.”⁹

The researchers proceeded to highlight the scope of effective crisis leadership with respect to establishing a sense of communal “self-efficacy and hope.” The influence of organized leadership serves to solidify the structure of the community as a whole, allowing group members the opportunity to address the stressors of interest. Such leadership may mitigate the stress response by fostering a necessary, healthy set for stress management.

Strategies aimed at supporting mental health

Coping and stress management strategies may include the process of building virtual networks (e.g., social media platforms) because physical distancing may contribute toward further isolation and social estrangement. However, it should be noted that ideally social media consumption should be centered upon interactive enrichment activities that provide a suitable substitute for the absence of physical support systems. The goal is to facilitate meaningful relationships and enduring communications that produce healthy and resilient mindsets.

In particular, individuals who possess adaptive mindsets with a realistic view of ongoing psychosocial stressors, be it from the impact of the pandemic or other influential events, are more likely to benefit when moving forward with life. In other words, the individual in question leverages these experiences as a means of “stress-related growth,” thereby enhancing the overall quality of relationships. Tentative studies in stress management have yielded promising support for interventions that aim to modulate mindsets (as a function of the stress response) by proper appraisal of the stress stimuli, according to Dr. Van Bavel and associates.
 

Employing assessment scales

To mitigate the stress response, clinicians need to use the relevant stress scales for assessing the full impact of distress brought on by COVID-19 and optimizing therapeutic modalities for those who need them most. Again, the stress response would vary, depending on the patient, and may include paranoia, xenophobia, compulsive ritualistic behavior, as well as full-fledged symptoms of acute stress disorder/PTSD.Steven Taylor, PhD, RPsych, and associates, part of a research team funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University of Regina (Sask.), formulated their proprietary COVID Stress Scales (CSS) based on 36 items pertaining to individual anxiety and/or stress responses.¹⁰

As general purpose pandemic scales, the assessment tools will be transferable to similar outbreaks, and have been examined for validity and reliability. Additional validation scales include the Patient Health Questionnaire–4 for anxiety and depression, the Short Health Anxiety Inventory for anxiety (irrespective of physical condition), and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale–Short Form for psychological well-being based on the presence (or the lack thereof) of desirable characteristics.¹⁰ As a composite scale and predictive tool (especially with respect to future pandemics), the CSS allows clinicians a means of identifying the people who are most compliant with safety procedures, social distancing, hygiene expectations, and vaccine protocols – when applicable – reported Dr. Taylor and associates.
 

Moving forward: The next step in COVID-19 preparedness

As clinicians continue to develop guidelines that are befitting of COVID-19’s “new normal,” a holistic psychosocial framework will need to integrate the various psychometrics gathered from assessment scales, as well as understanding trauma, especially with respect to the HPA axis.

For starters, there is a certain element of “anticipatory anxiety” for those experiencing distress from COVID-19. A highly uncertain future with no immediate cure in the future, isolation and social estrangement, as well as financial setbacks, compound the situation. Moreover, the DSM fails to acknowledge other sources of traumatic experiences that are systemic in nature, such as discriminatory practices, injustice, and/or persecution.

It has also been noted that some distressed individuals experience a hypervigilant state that is comparable with PTSD.¹¹ There may be a push to incorporate machine learning and other modalities to better identify those at risk (for example, health care professionals who perform their duties with limited resources, thereby inducing sleep dysregulation, anxiety, and hopelessness) for mental health deterioration. Interventions may need to be coordinated in a timely manner to disrupt the progression of acute stress disorder to PTSD. Peer support programs and resiliency training – successful therapeutic approaches for PTSD – may prove to have considerable utility for mitigating the overall stress response of COVID-19.¹²

References

1. “Red Cross offering online course to manage crisis-related stress.” ABC 6 News. kaaltv.com, 2020 Aug 29.

2. Islam FA, Choudhry C. J Psychiatry Psychiatric Disord 2017;1(5): 290-3.

3. Faravelli C et al. World J Psychiatry. 2012 Feb 22;2(1):13-25.

4. Carmassi C et al. Psychiatry Res. 2015 Jan 30;225(1-2):64-9.

5. Pal R. Endocrine. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1007/s12020-020-02325-1.

6. Steenblock C et al. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 May. doi: 10.1038/s41380-020-0758-9.

7. Wang C et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jan;17(5):1729.

8. Ho CS et al. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2020 Mar 16;49(3):155-60.

9. Van Bavel JJ et al. Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.

10. Taylor S et al. J Anxiety Disord. 2020 May 4;72:102232.

11. Horesh D, Brown AD. Psychol Trauma. 2020 May;12(4):331-5.

12. Clark H et al. National Health Library and Knowledge Service/Evidence Team. Summary of Evidence: COVID-19, 2020 May 22. Version 2.0.

Dr. Faisal A. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Mohammed S. Islam is a research physician and extern at Interfaith Medical Center, New York. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. Dr. Jolayemi is an attending psychiatrist at Interfaith Medical Center. No disclosures were reported.

Psychological First Aid is an innovative program launched by the American Red Cross with the goal of addressing issues of concern such as those stemming from COVID-19–related stress. According to Red Cross mental health volunteer representative Deb Butman-Perkins, the program provides “a general overview of what does stress look like, how do we feel it, how do we recognize it in our bodies ... physical, emotional, spiritual, physiological, where does all that stress occur?”¹

The program brings a spotlight to the interdisciplinary nature of the stress response, especially with respect to the importance of developing the necessary coping skills during an ongoing crisis. However, to effectively evaluate and manage the overall stress response for psychiatric patients during quarantine conditions, as well as those who are formally diagnosed with COVID-19, clinicians also will need to revisit what we’ve learned about the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.

We know that the stress response – which varies somewhat across the spectrum – is necessary to ensure homeostatic regulation. A feedback loop is initiated at the receptor level, involving a myriad of hormones and chemical signals that bring forth the body’s “flight-or-fight” response. Hormones such as epinephrine/norepinephrine and cortisol are secreted by the HPA axis in reaction to the stress response, resulting in a spike in heart rate, blood pressure, and transient hyperglycemia, respectively. In particular, hyperglycemia provides immediate energy to muscles during a perceived crisis.²

In addition, prolonged exposure to living in quarantine can lead to feelings of isolation and estrangement – and excessive anxiety. Combined, those conditions may exert an indelible effect on the HPA axis – leading to a warped pattern of cortisol secretion with respect to baseline.³ (It has been noted in the literature that serum cortisol plays a protective role in thwarting off the effects of PTSD development. Consistent with this line of thinking, military personnel have been preemptively treated with high-dose cortisol during acute exposure.)

Prolonged exposure to psychosocial stressors also increases the overall risk of developing medical comorbidities. Patients who adopt maladaptive responses to traumatic events, for example, may experience dysregulation in eating behaviors and/or disordered sleep.⁴

In light of those realities, clinicians should explore the role of steroid therapy as a means of treating mental health patients experiencing psychological stress formation tied to ongoing quarantine conditions.
 

Challenges of neuroendocrine medications for COVID-19

COVID-19, caused by exposure to SARS-CoV-2, adeptly leverages the ACE2 receptor of the lungs as an entry point to evade the host’s defenses. It should be noted that the ACE2 protein is expressed on the cells of multiple organs of the body, including the adrenals, which are largely responsible for coordinating the stress response of the HPA axis.

Postmortem analysis from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV is also from the Coronaviridae family) patients indicates the presence of necrotic adrenal cells, further solidifying the association of the HPA axis to the COVID-19 disease state and pathophysiological course.⁵ Molecular mimicry of the adrenocorticotropic hormone allows SARS-CoV the ability to infiltrate the host’s defenses, in particular, the ability to mount a clinically apt cortisol stress response (e.g., hypocortisolism).As for those who survived the 2003 SARS outbreak, less than half of the patients have been observed to develop symptoms of frank hypocortisolism within a few months after exposure.

The World Health Organization recently endorsed the use of steroid therapy for critically ill COVID-19 patients, and an ongoing clinical trial is evaluating the safety and efficacy parameters of corticosteroids in COVID-19–exposed patients.

In addition, there is reason to believe that application of prophylactic steroids might affect the overall clinical course of COVID-19, thereby reducing mortality and morbidity rates in patients with severe presentation, such as septic shock. The rationale for this line of thought is based on the ability of glucocorticoids to suppress an ensuing cytokine storm by the virus in question.^5,6 In clinical practice, steroids have been used to treat a host of viral diseases, including influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.

Aside from the selective use of corticosteroids, the medication regimen may incorporate ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) because of COVID-19’s ability to activate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with respect to the physiological stress response.

The interplay of the HPA axis with the sympathoadrenal system is responsible for adaptive behaviors in the individual. Disrupted feedback loops from prolonged activation are associated with numerous stress-based conditions in mental illness, namely, PTSD, anxiety, and mood disorders. We are concerned about frontline health care workers, who are particularly prone to chronic stress and burnout because of the cumbersome patient load and equipment shortage that have characterized the coronavirus crisis.

Timely administration of corticosteroids on a case-by-case basis would keep the cytokines at bay by precluding their undue activation of the HPA axis and corresponding cascade stress response. Steroids are also known to restore disrupted feedback loops at the level of the immune cells. However, because of conflicting reports concerning viral clearance in some SARS and COVID-19 studies, treatment with steroids may be limited to select patient populations with the necessary dose adjustments. Ongoing clinical trials will further elucidate upon the applicability of steroids as well as the role of other neuroendocrine agents, such as ACE inhibitors or ARBs, in the treatment of COVID-19.
 

Behavioral manifestations and psychosocial health

As far as the stress response is concerned, an analysis performed by researchers in China after the COVID-19 outbreak found gender disparities in symptom expression. In the study (n = 1,210) the researchers found in female citizens a greater frequency of behavioral manifestations, including acute stress reaction, and symptoms of anxiety and mood disorders – namely, depression.⁷ Patient perception and awareness of the perils of coronavirus typically varied across the spectrum; some individuals reportedly undermined and devalued their risk of contracting COVID-19 – these patients may benefit from therapeutic modalities, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), as a means of challenging their firmly entrenched cognitive distortions. CBT is an effective tool in addressing maladaptive coping responses, because these strategies tend to correspond with poor prognosis with respect to overall mental health. Aside from CBT, the clinician may advise other behavioral techniques, such as relaxation training, with the aim of controlling the symptoms of mood and anxiety disorders.

We often take for granted general pandemic safety precautions, such as maintaining physical distancing coupled with engaging in regular hand hygiene and wearing masks, but these actions also are known to alleviate mental anguish. Access to accurate and easy-to-consume health information regarding COVID-19 is also associated with psychological well-being during the quarantine.⁸

An intriguing “phenomenon” has emerged in the form of “panic buying.”However, researchers reported in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Human Behaviour that this pattern of behaviors is not typical for those under distress and represents an overstated misnomer of sorts. According to Jay J. Van Bavel, PhD, and associates, prevailing reports from news outlets have skewed the features of a panic. “News stories that employ the language of panic often create the very phenomena that they purport to condemn,” Dr. Van Bavel and associates wrote. “They can foster the very individualism and competitiveness that turn sensible preparations into dysfunctional stockpiling and undermine the sense of collective purpose which facilitates people supporting one another during an emergency.”⁹

The researchers proceeded to highlight the scope of effective crisis leadership with respect to establishing a sense of communal “self-efficacy and hope.” The influence of organized leadership serves to solidify the structure of the community as a whole, allowing group members the opportunity to address the stressors of interest. Such leadership may mitigate the stress response by fostering a necessary, healthy set for stress management.

Strategies aimed at supporting mental health

Coping and stress management strategies may include the process of building virtual networks (e.g., social media platforms) because physical distancing may contribute toward further isolation and social estrangement. However, it should be noted that ideally social media consumption should be centered upon interactive enrichment activities that provide a suitable substitute for the absence of physical support systems. The goal is to facilitate meaningful relationships and enduring communications that produce healthy and resilient mindsets.

In particular, individuals who possess adaptive mindsets with a realistic view of ongoing psychosocial stressors, be it from the impact of the pandemic or other influential events, are more likely to benefit when moving forward with life. In other words, the individual in question leverages these experiences as a means of “stress-related growth,” thereby enhancing the overall quality of relationships. Tentative studies in stress management have yielded promising support for interventions that aim to modulate mindsets (as a function of the stress response) by proper appraisal of the stress stimuli, according to Dr. Van Bavel and associates.
 

Employing assessment scales

To mitigate the stress response, clinicians need to use the relevant stress scales for assessing the full impact of distress brought on by COVID-19 and optimizing therapeutic modalities for those who need them most. Again, the stress response would vary, depending on the patient, and may include paranoia, xenophobia, compulsive ritualistic behavior, as well as full-fledged symptoms of acute stress disorder/PTSD.Steven Taylor, PhD, RPsych, and associates, part of a research team funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University of Regina (Sask.), formulated their proprietary COVID Stress Scales (CSS) based on 36 items pertaining to individual anxiety and/or stress responses.¹⁰

As general purpose pandemic scales, the assessment tools will be transferable to similar outbreaks, and have been examined for validity and reliability. Additional validation scales include the Patient Health Questionnaire–4 for anxiety and depression, the Short Health Anxiety Inventory for anxiety (irrespective of physical condition), and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale–Short Form for psychological well-being based on the presence (or the lack thereof) of desirable characteristics.¹⁰ As a composite scale and predictive tool (especially with respect to future pandemics), the CSS allows clinicians a means of identifying the people who are most compliant with safety procedures, social distancing, hygiene expectations, and vaccine protocols – when applicable – reported Dr. Taylor and associates.
 

Moving forward: The next step in COVID-19 preparedness

As clinicians continue to develop guidelines that are befitting of COVID-19’s “new normal,” a holistic psychosocial framework will need to integrate the various psychometrics gathered from assessment scales, as well as understanding trauma, especially with respect to the HPA axis.

For starters, there is a certain element of “anticipatory anxiety” for those experiencing distress from COVID-19. A highly uncertain future with no immediate cure in the future, isolation and social estrangement, as well as financial setbacks, compound the situation. Moreover, the DSM fails to acknowledge other sources of traumatic experiences that are systemic in nature, such as discriminatory practices, injustice, and/or persecution.

It has also been noted that some distressed individuals experience a hypervigilant state that is comparable with PTSD.¹¹ There may be a push to incorporate machine learning and other modalities to better identify those at risk (for example, health care professionals who perform their duties with limited resources, thereby inducing sleep dysregulation, anxiety, and hopelessness) for mental health deterioration. Interventions may need to be coordinated in a timely manner to disrupt the progression of acute stress disorder to PTSD. Peer support programs and resiliency training – successful therapeutic approaches for PTSD – may prove to have considerable utility for mitigating the overall stress response of COVID-19.¹²

References

1. “Red Cross offering online course to manage crisis-related stress.” ABC 6 News. kaaltv.com, 2020 Aug 29.

2. Islam FA, Choudhry C. J Psychiatry Psychiatric Disord 2017;1(5): 290-3.

3. Faravelli C et al. World J Psychiatry. 2012 Feb 22;2(1):13-25.

4. Carmassi C et al. Psychiatry Res. 2015 Jan 30;225(1-2):64-9.

5. Pal R. Endocrine. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1007/s12020-020-02325-1.

6. Steenblock C et al. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 May. doi: 10.1038/s41380-020-0758-9.

7. Wang C et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jan;17(5):1729.

8. Ho CS et al. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2020 Mar 16;49(3):155-60.

9. Van Bavel JJ et al. Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.

10. Taylor S et al. J Anxiety Disord. 2020 May 4;72:102232.

11. Horesh D, Brown AD. Psychol Trauma. 2020 May;12(4):331-5.

12. Clark H et al. National Health Library and Knowledge Service/Evidence Team. Summary of Evidence: COVID-19, 2020 May 22. Version 2.0.

Dr. Faisal A. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Mohammed S. Islam is a research physician and extern at Interfaith Medical Center, New York. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. Dr. Jolayemi is an attending psychiatrist at Interfaith Medical Center. No disclosures were reported.

Psychological First Aid is an innovative program launched by the American Red Cross with the goal of addressing issues of concern such as those stemming from COVID-19–related stress. According to Red Cross mental health volunteer representative Deb Butman-Perkins, the program provides “a general overview of what does stress look like, how do we feel it, how do we recognize it in our bodies ... physical, emotional, spiritual, physiological, where does all that stress occur?”¹

The program brings a spotlight to the interdisciplinary nature of the stress response, especially with respect to the importance of developing the necessary coping skills during an ongoing crisis. However, to effectively evaluate and manage the overall stress response for psychiatric patients during quarantine conditions, as well as those who are formally diagnosed with COVID-19, clinicians also will need to revisit what we’ve learned about the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.

We know that the stress response – which varies somewhat across the spectrum – is necessary to ensure homeostatic regulation. A feedback loop is initiated at the receptor level, involving a myriad of hormones and chemical signals that bring forth the body’s “flight-or-fight” response. Hormones such as epinephrine/norepinephrine and cortisol are secreted by the HPA axis in reaction to the stress response, resulting in a spike in heart rate, blood pressure, and transient hyperglycemia, respectively. In particular, hyperglycemia provides immediate energy to muscles during a perceived crisis.²

In addition, prolonged exposure to living in quarantine can lead to feelings of isolation and estrangement – and excessive anxiety. Combined, those conditions may exert an indelible effect on the HPA axis – leading to a warped pattern of cortisol secretion with respect to baseline.³ (It has been noted in the literature that serum cortisol plays a protective role in thwarting off the effects of PTSD development. Consistent with this line of thinking, military personnel have been preemptively treated with high-dose cortisol during acute exposure.)

Prolonged exposure to psychosocial stressors also increases the overall risk of developing medical comorbidities. Patients who adopt maladaptive responses to traumatic events, for example, may experience dysregulation in eating behaviors and/or disordered sleep.⁴

In light of those realities, clinicians should explore the role of steroid therapy as a means of treating mental health patients experiencing psychological stress formation tied to ongoing quarantine conditions.
 

Challenges of neuroendocrine medications for COVID-19

COVID-19, caused by exposure to SARS-CoV-2, adeptly leverages the ACE2 receptor of the lungs as an entry point to evade the host’s defenses. It should be noted that the ACE2 protein is expressed on the cells of multiple organs of the body, including the adrenals, which are largely responsible for coordinating the stress response of the HPA axis.

Postmortem analysis from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV is also from the Coronaviridae family) patients indicates the presence of necrotic adrenal cells, further solidifying the association of the HPA axis to the COVID-19 disease state and pathophysiological course.⁵ Molecular mimicry of the adrenocorticotropic hormone allows SARS-CoV the ability to infiltrate the host’s defenses, in particular, the ability to mount a clinically apt cortisol stress response (e.g., hypocortisolism).As for those who survived the 2003 SARS outbreak, less than half of the patients have been observed to develop symptoms of frank hypocortisolism within a few months after exposure.

The World Health Organization recently endorsed the use of steroid therapy for critically ill COVID-19 patients, and an ongoing clinical trial is evaluating the safety and efficacy parameters of corticosteroids in COVID-19–exposed patients.

In addition, there is reason to believe that application of prophylactic steroids might affect the overall clinical course of COVID-19, thereby reducing mortality and morbidity rates in patients with severe presentation, such as septic shock. The rationale for this line of thought is based on the ability of glucocorticoids to suppress an ensuing cytokine storm by the virus in question.^5,6 In clinical practice, steroids have been used to treat a host of viral diseases, including influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.

Aside from the selective use of corticosteroids, the medication regimen may incorporate ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) because of COVID-19’s ability to activate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with respect to the physiological stress response.

The interplay of the HPA axis with the sympathoadrenal system is responsible for adaptive behaviors in the individual. Disrupted feedback loops from prolonged activation are associated with numerous stress-based conditions in mental illness, namely, PTSD, anxiety, and mood disorders. We are concerned about frontline health care workers, who are particularly prone to chronic stress and burnout because of the cumbersome patient load and equipment shortage that have characterized the coronavirus crisis.

Timely administration of corticosteroids on a case-by-case basis would keep the cytokines at bay by precluding their undue activation of the HPA axis and corresponding cascade stress response. Steroids are also known to restore disrupted feedback loops at the level of the immune cells. However, because of conflicting reports concerning viral clearance in some SARS and COVID-19 studies, treatment with steroids may be limited to select patient populations with the necessary dose adjustments. Ongoing clinical trials will further elucidate upon the applicability of steroids as well as the role of other neuroendocrine agents, such as ACE inhibitors or ARBs, in the treatment of COVID-19.
 

Behavioral manifestations and psychosocial health

As far as the stress response is concerned, an analysis performed by researchers in China after the COVID-19 outbreak found gender disparities in symptom expression. In the study (n = 1,210) the researchers found in female citizens a greater frequency of behavioral manifestations, including acute stress reaction, and symptoms of anxiety and mood disorders – namely, depression.⁷ Patient perception and awareness of the perils of coronavirus typically varied across the spectrum; some individuals reportedly undermined and devalued their risk of contracting COVID-19 – these patients may benefit from therapeutic modalities, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), as a means of challenging their firmly entrenched cognitive distortions. CBT is an effective tool in addressing maladaptive coping responses, because these strategies tend to correspond with poor prognosis with respect to overall mental health. Aside from CBT, the clinician may advise other behavioral techniques, such as relaxation training, with the aim of controlling the symptoms of mood and anxiety disorders.

We often take for granted general pandemic safety precautions, such as maintaining physical distancing coupled with engaging in regular hand hygiene and wearing masks, but these actions also are known to alleviate mental anguish. Access to accurate and easy-to-consume health information regarding COVID-19 is also associated with psychological well-being during the quarantine.⁸

An intriguing “phenomenon” has emerged in the form of “panic buying.”However, researchers reported in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Human Behaviour that this pattern of behaviors is not typical for those under distress and represents an overstated misnomer of sorts. According to Jay J. Van Bavel, PhD, and associates, prevailing reports from news outlets have skewed the features of a panic. “News stories that employ the language of panic often create the very phenomena that they purport to condemn,” Dr. Van Bavel and associates wrote. “They can foster the very individualism and competitiveness that turn sensible preparations into dysfunctional stockpiling and undermine the sense of collective purpose which facilitates people supporting one another during an emergency.”⁹

The researchers proceeded to highlight the scope of effective crisis leadership with respect to establishing a sense of communal “self-efficacy and hope.” The influence of organized leadership serves to solidify the structure of the community as a whole, allowing group members the opportunity to address the stressors of interest. Such leadership may mitigate the stress response by fostering a necessary, healthy set for stress management.

Strategies aimed at supporting mental health

Coping and stress management strategies may include the process of building virtual networks (e.g., social media platforms) because physical distancing may contribute toward further isolation and social estrangement. However, it should be noted that ideally social media consumption should be centered upon interactive enrichment activities that provide a suitable substitute for the absence of physical support systems. The goal is to facilitate meaningful relationships and enduring communications that produce healthy and resilient mindsets.

In particular, individuals who possess adaptive mindsets with a realistic view of ongoing psychosocial stressors, be it from the impact of the pandemic or other influential events, are more likely to benefit when moving forward with life. In other words, the individual in question leverages these experiences as a means of “stress-related growth,” thereby enhancing the overall quality of relationships. Tentative studies in stress management have yielded promising support for interventions that aim to modulate mindsets (as a function of the stress response) by proper appraisal of the stress stimuli, according to Dr. Van Bavel and associates.
 

Employing assessment scales

To mitigate the stress response, clinicians need to use the relevant stress scales for assessing the full impact of distress brought on by COVID-19 and optimizing therapeutic modalities for those who need them most. Again, the stress response would vary, depending on the patient, and may include paranoia, xenophobia, compulsive ritualistic behavior, as well as full-fledged symptoms of acute stress disorder/PTSD.Steven Taylor, PhD, RPsych, and associates, part of a research team funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University of Regina (Sask.), formulated their proprietary COVID Stress Scales (CSS) based on 36 items pertaining to individual anxiety and/or stress responses.¹⁰

As general purpose pandemic scales, the assessment tools will be transferable to similar outbreaks, and have been examined for validity and reliability. Additional validation scales include the Patient Health Questionnaire–4 for anxiety and depression, the Short Health Anxiety Inventory for anxiety (irrespective of physical condition), and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale–Short Form for psychological well-being based on the presence (or the lack thereof) of desirable characteristics.¹⁰ As a composite scale and predictive tool (especially with respect to future pandemics), the CSS allows clinicians a means of identifying the people who are most compliant with safety procedures, social distancing, hygiene expectations, and vaccine protocols – when applicable – reported Dr. Taylor and associates.
 

Moving forward: The next step in COVID-19 preparedness

As clinicians continue to develop guidelines that are befitting of COVID-19’s “new normal,” a holistic psychosocial framework will need to integrate the various psychometrics gathered from assessment scales, as well as understanding trauma, especially with respect to the HPA axis.

For starters, there is a certain element of “anticipatory anxiety” for those experiencing distress from COVID-19. A highly uncertain future with no immediate cure in the future, isolation and social estrangement, as well as financial setbacks, compound the situation. Moreover, the DSM fails to acknowledge other sources of traumatic experiences that are systemic in nature, such as discriminatory practices, injustice, and/or persecution.

It has also been noted that some distressed individuals experience a hypervigilant state that is comparable with PTSD.¹¹ There may be a push to incorporate machine learning and other modalities to better identify those at risk (for example, health care professionals who perform their duties with limited resources, thereby inducing sleep dysregulation, anxiety, and hopelessness) for mental health deterioration. Interventions may need to be coordinated in a timely manner to disrupt the progression of acute stress disorder to PTSD. Peer support programs and resiliency training – successful therapeutic approaches for PTSD – may prove to have considerable utility for mitigating the overall stress response of COVID-19.¹²

References

1. “Red Cross offering online course to manage crisis-related stress.” ABC 6 News. kaaltv.com, 2020 Aug 29.

2. Islam FA, Choudhry C. J Psychiatry Psychiatric Disord 2017;1(5): 290-3.

3. Faravelli C et al. World J Psychiatry. 2012 Feb 22;2(1):13-25.

4. Carmassi C et al. Psychiatry Res. 2015 Jan 30;225(1-2):64-9.

5. Pal R. Endocrine. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1007/s12020-020-02325-1.

6. Steenblock C et al. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 May. doi: 10.1038/s41380-020-0758-9.

7. Wang C et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jan;17(5):1729.

8. Ho CS et al. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2020 Mar 16;49(3):155-60.

9. Van Bavel JJ et al. Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.

10. Taylor S et al. J Anxiety Disord. 2020 May 4;72:102232.

11. Horesh D, Brown AD. Psychol Trauma. 2020 May;12(4):331-5.

12. Clark H et al. National Health Library and Knowledge Service/Evidence Team. Summary of Evidence: COVID-19, 2020 May 22. Version 2.0.

Dr. Faisal A. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Mohammed S. Islam is a research physician and extern at Interfaith Medical Center, New York. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. Dr. Jolayemi is an attending psychiatrist at Interfaith Medical Center. No disclosures were reported.

The two top developments of the year in the field of neurostimulation involve the oldest form of the therapy: electroconvulsive therapy, Alexander Sartorius, MD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bram Janssens/Thinkstock

One of these studies shot down the longstanding notion that ECT causes brain damage. The other, a Danish national registry study, demonstrated that ECT is associated with lower all-cause mortality than in patients with similarly severe depression who don’t undergo ECT.

“The take-home messages are that ECT does not lead to brain damage but rather to a profound gray matter increase. And secondly, ECT lowers all-cause mortality in patients with depression,” said Dr. Sartorius, a psychiatrist at the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany.

The year has been less fruitful in terms of research involving deep brain stimulation using implantable electrodes, he continued.

“Basically, one can state that there is no breaking news in the field of deep brain stimulation. DBS remains a highly experimental form of therapy,” Dr. Sartorius said.
 

ECT-induced brain changes

Investigators participating in the international multicenter Global ECT-MRI Research Collaboration (GEMRIC) reported on the longitudinal effects of ECT on gray matter, white matter, and ventricular volumes in 328 patients who underwent imaging before and after ECT for a major depressive episode, as well as in 95 nondepressed controls.

The key finding was that ECT induced a widespread, nonspecific global increase in gray matter volume. Indeed, the volumetric increase was documented in 79 of 84 gray matter regions of interest. Subcortical gray matter volume increased by a mean of 1.47% in ECT-treated patients, and total cortical volume rose by 1.04%. Total white matter volume remained unchanged.

“The gray matter increase induced by ECT looks quite similar to the gray matter increase seen with physical activity,” Dr. Sartorius noted.

The size of the gray matter volume increase rose with the number of ECT sessions. However, gray matter enlargement in response to ECT showed no relationship with clinical response, indicating that this finding on brain imaging doesn’t have a promising future as a potential biomarker of treatment effectiveness (Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Mar 1;87[5]:451-61).

“The good news from this study is there is no gray matter decrease,” Dr. Sartorius said. “This study enhances the existing evidence falsifying the old idea or dogma that ECT induces brain damage. I would claim that the opposite is clearly the case.”
 

ECT and mortality

The same group of investigators at the University of Copenhagen who several years ago harnessed Danish national patient registries data to report that ECT was associated with an unadjusted 32% and adjusted 23% reduction in the risk of developing dementia in patients aged 70 years and older (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;5[4]:348-56) have recently concluded that ECT was also associated with a 19% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with that of patients hospitalized for major depression who didn’t receive ECT.

The national registries study included 5,004 patients who were treated with ECT and nearly 88,000 others who were hospitalized for major depression during 2005-2016 but didn’t receive ECT. During up to 11.3 years of follow-up, the risk of all-cause mortality was 8% lower with ECT than with no ECT in patients categorized as having mild depression, 17% lower with a history of ECT for moderate depression, 4% less with severe depression without psychotic features, and 30% less with ECT than no ECT for severe depression with psychotic features (J Psychopharmacol. 2020 Mar;34[3]:273-9).

ECT was associated with an adjusted 6.99-fold increased risk of suicide in patients with mild depression. At first look that’s unsettling, Dr. Sartorius said, but he pointed out that the size of the ECT-associated suicide risk lessened with increasing severity of depression, and in fact, there was no increased suicide risk with ECT in severely depressed patients with psychotic features. ECT was also associated with significantly higher rates of psychiatric rehospitalization, emergency department visits, and suicidal behavior in patients classified as having mild or moderate depression. Dr. Sartorius suspects these findings reflect diagnostic uncertainty surrounding the milder forms of depression, coupled with the reality that ECT is generally reserved for the most unstable, treatment-resistant patients.

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation

A Taiwanese meta-analysis has helped clarify the role of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) for treatment-resistant depression. The meta-analysis included 198 patients with treatment-resistant depression who underwent dTMS and 219 who received sham treatment in a total of 15 studies, only three of which were randomized controlled trials.

Active treatment was associated with a 2.06-fold increased likelihood of remission of depressive symptoms; however, the effect was statistically significant only in the subgroup of patients on concurrent antidepressant medication. Moreover, the therapeutic benefit of dTMS was significantly greater in the nonrandomized studies, where the odds ratio for remission was 3.8-fold greater than with sham therapy. In contrast, the odds ratio for remission with dTMS dropped to 1.37 in the randomized trials (Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 20;99:109850. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2019.109850). “dTMS has quite a bit of antidepressant potential in treatment-resistant depression, but as an augmentation strategy. More randomized trials are needed, with a particular focus on which classes of antidepressants might be most effective as concurrent therapy,” Dr. Sartorius concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sartorius A. ECNP 2020, Session TP.03.

The two top developments of the year in the field of neurostimulation involve the oldest form of the therapy: electroconvulsive therapy, Alexander Sartorius, MD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bram Janssens/Thinkstock

One of these studies shot down the longstanding notion that ECT causes brain damage. The other, a Danish national registry study, demonstrated that ECT is associated with lower all-cause mortality than in patients with similarly severe depression who don’t undergo ECT.

“The take-home messages are that ECT does not lead to brain damage but rather to a profound gray matter increase. And secondly, ECT lowers all-cause mortality in patients with depression,” said Dr. Sartorius, a psychiatrist at the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany.

The year has been less fruitful in terms of research involving deep brain stimulation using implantable electrodes, he continued.

“Basically, one can state that there is no breaking news in the field of deep brain stimulation. DBS remains a highly experimental form of therapy,” Dr. Sartorius said.
 

ECT-induced brain changes

Investigators participating in the international multicenter Global ECT-MRI Research Collaboration (GEMRIC) reported on the longitudinal effects of ECT on gray matter, white matter, and ventricular volumes in 328 patients who underwent imaging before and after ECT for a major depressive episode, as well as in 95 nondepressed controls.

The key finding was that ECT induced a widespread, nonspecific global increase in gray matter volume. Indeed, the volumetric increase was documented in 79 of 84 gray matter regions of interest. Subcortical gray matter volume increased by a mean of 1.47% in ECT-treated patients, and total cortical volume rose by 1.04%. Total white matter volume remained unchanged.

“The gray matter increase induced by ECT looks quite similar to the gray matter increase seen with physical activity,” Dr. Sartorius noted.

The size of the gray matter volume increase rose with the number of ECT sessions. However, gray matter enlargement in response to ECT showed no relationship with clinical response, indicating that this finding on brain imaging doesn’t have a promising future as a potential biomarker of treatment effectiveness (Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Mar 1;87[5]:451-61).

“The good news from this study is there is no gray matter decrease,” Dr. Sartorius said. “This study enhances the existing evidence falsifying the old idea or dogma that ECT induces brain damage. I would claim that the opposite is clearly the case.”
 

ECT and mortality

The same group of investigators at the University of Copenhagen who several years ago harnessed Danish national patient registries data to report that ECT was associated with an unadjusted 32% and adjusted 23% reduction in the risk of developing dementia in patients aged 70 years and older (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;5[4]:348-56) have recently concluded that ECT was also associated with a 19% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with that of patients hospitalized for major depression who didn’t receive ECT.

The national registries study included 5,004 patients who were treated with ECT and nearly 88,000 others who were hospitalized for major depression during 2005-2016 but didn’t receive ECT. During up to 11.3 years of follow-up, the risk of all-cause mortality was 8% lower with ECT than with no ECT in patients categorized as having mild depression, 17% lower with a history of ECT for moderate depression, 4% less with severe depression without psychotic features, and 30% less with ECT than no ECT for severe depression with psychotic features (J Psychopharmacol. 2020 Mar;34[3]:273-9).

ECT was associated with an adjusted 6.99-fold increased risk of suicide in patients with mild depression. At first look that’s unsettling, Dr. Sartorius said, but he pointed out that the size of the ECT-associated suicide risk lessened with increasing severity of depression, and in fact, there was no increased suicide risk with ECT in severely depressed patients with psychotic features. ECT was also associated with significantly higher rates of psychiatric rehospitalization, emergency department visits, and suicidal behavior in patients classified as having mild or moderate depression. Dr. Sartorius suspects these findings reflect diagnostic uncertainty surrounding the milder forms of depression, coupled with the reality that ECT is generally reserved for the most unstable, treatment-resistant patients.

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation

A Taiwanese meta-analysis has helped clarify the role of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) for treatment-resistant depression. The meta-analysis included 198 patients with treatment-resistant depression who underwent dTMS and 219 who received sham treatment in a total of 15 studies, only three of which were randomized controlled trials.

Active treatment was associated with a 2.06-fold increased likelihood of remission of depressive symptoms; however, the effect was statistically significant only in the subgroup of patients on concurrent antidepressant medication. Moreover, the therapeutic benefit of dTMS was significantly greater in the nonrandomized studies, where the odds ratio for remission was 3.8-fold greater than with sham therapy. In contrast, the odds ratio for remission with dTMS dropped to 1.37 in the randomized trials (Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 20;99:109850. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2019.109850). “dTMS has quite a bit of antidepressant potential in treatment-resistant depression, but as an augmentation strategy. More randomized trials are needed, with a particular focus on which classes of antidepressants might be most effective as concurrent therapy,” Dr. Sartorius concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sartorius A. ECNP 2020, Session TP.03.

The two top developments of the year in the field of neurostimulation involve the oldest form of the therapy: electroconvulsive therapy, Alexander Sartorius, MD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bram Janssens/Thinkstock

One of these studies shot down the longstanding notion that ECT causes brain damage. The other, a Danish national registry study, demonstrated that ECT is associated with lower all-cause mortality than in patients with similarly severe depression who don’t undergo ECT.

“The take-home messages are that ECT does not lead to brain damage but rather to a profound gray matter increase. And secondly, ECT lowers all-cause mortality in patients with depression,” said Dr. Sartorius, a psychiatrist at the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany.

The year has been less fruitful in terms of research involving deep brain stimulation using implantable electrodes, he continued.

“Basically, one can state that there is no breaking news in the field of deep brain stimulation. DBS remains a highly experimental form of therapy,” Dr. Sartorius said.
 

ECT-induced brain changes

Investigators participating in the international multicenter Global ECT-MRI Research Collaboration (GEMRIC) reported on the longitudinal effects of ECT on gray matter, white matter, and ventricular volumes in 328 patients who underwent imaging before and after ECT for a major depressive episode, as well as in 95 nondepressed controls.

The key finding was that ECT induced a widespread, nonspecific global increase in gray matter volume. Indeed, the volumetric increase was documented in 79 of 84 gray matter regions of interest. Subcortical gray matter volume increased by a mean of 1.47% in ECT-treated patients, and total cortical volume rose by 1.04%. Total white matter volume remained unchanged.

“The gray matter increase induced by ECT looks quite similar to the gray matter increase seen with physical activity,” Dr. Sartorius noted.

The size of the gray matter volume increase rose with the number of ECT sessions. However, gray matter enlargement in response to ECT showed no relationship with clinical response, indicating that this finding on brain imaging doesn’t have a promising future as a potential biomarker of treatment effectiveness (Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Mar 1;87[5]:451-61).

“The good news from this study is there is no gray matter decrease,” Dr. Sartorius said. “This study enhances the existing evidence falsifying the old idea or dogma that ECT induces brain damage. I would claim that the opposite is clearly the case.”
 

ECT and mortality

The same group of investigators at the University of Copenhagen who several years ago harnessed Danish national patient registries data to report that ECT was associated with an unadjusted 32% and adjusted 23% reduction in the risk of developing dementia in patients aged 70 years and older (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;5[4]:348-56) have recently concluded that ECT was also associated with a 19% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with that of patients hospitalized for major depression who didn’t receive ECT.

The national registries study included 5,004 patients who were treated with ECT and nearly 88,000 others who were hospitalized for major depression during 2005-2016 but didn’t receive ECT. During up to 11.3 years of follow-up, the risk of all-cause mortality was 8% lower with ECT than with no ECT in patients categorized as having mild depression, 17% lower with a history of ECT for moderate depression, 4% less with severe depression without psychotic features, and 30% less with ECT than no ECT for severe depression with psychotic features (J Psychopharmacol. 2020 Mar;34[3]:273-9).

ECT was associated with an adjusted 6.99-fold increased risk of suicide in patients with mild depression. At first look that’s unsettling, Dr. Sartorius said, but he pointed out that the size of the ECT-associated suicide risk lessened with increasing severity of depression, and in fact, there was no increased suicide risk with ECT in severely depressed patients with psychotic features. ECT was also associated with significantly higher rates of psychiatric rehospitalization, emergency department visits, and suicidal behavior in patients classified as having mild or moderate depression. Dr. Sartorius suspects these findings reflect diagnostic uncertainty surrounding the milder forms of depression, coupled with the reality that ECT is generally reserved for the most unstable, treatment-resistant patients.

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation

A Taiwanese meta-analysis has helped clarify the role of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) for treatment-resistant depression. The meta-analysis included 198 patients with treatment-resistant depression who underwent dTMS and 219 who received sham treatment in a total of 15 studies, only three of which were randomized controlled trials.

Active treatment was associated with a 2.06-fold increased likelihood of remission of depressive symptoms; however, the effect was statistically significant only in the subgroup of patients on concurrent antidepressant medication. Moreover, the therapeutic benefit of dTMS was significantly greater in the nonrandomized studies, where the odds ratio for remission was 3.8-fold greater than with sham therapy. In contrast, the odds ratio for remission with dTMS dropped to 1.37 in the randomized trials (Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 20;99:109850. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2019.109850). “dTMS has quite a bit of antidepressant potential in treatment-resistant depression, but as an augmentation strategy. More randomized trials are needed, with a particular focus on which classes of antidepressants might be most effective as concurrent therapy,” Dr. Sartorius concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sartorius A. ECNP 2020, Session TP.03.