Clinical Psychiatry News

Pregnancy and the postpartum period are a “very vulnerable time for mental disorders,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.

Courtney Hale/Getty Images

“Those changes that are helping pregnancy can also have psychiatric and psychopathological implications,” Dr. Nasrallah said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

Numerous dramatic changes in physiology, immune functions, cognition, neuroplasticity, and behavior occur during pregnancy, noted Dr. Nasrallah of the University of Cincinnati. For example, the volume of the brain actually decreases during pregnancy, but brain size recovers over the 6 months after delivery. “Clearly, this is a transitional and a transient phenomenon,” he said. “The decrease in brain volume is associated with changes in brain metabolism and an increase in intracellular pH after delivery.”

But these changes can also carry risks for psychiatric disorders, Dr. Nasrallah explained. Changes in the hippocampus, which is “very plastic throughout adulthood,” have been linked to aging, cognition, pregnancy, and motherhood. “The hippocampus is the ‘Grand Central Station’ of memory in the brain, and the hippocampus is affected by neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, which disproportionately affect women,” he said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Nasrallah said the hippocampus has particular susceptibility during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, or in women who have previously been pregnant.

Gender of the fetus can even affect the health of the mother, he added. In women who are pregnant with male fetuses, working memory and spatial ability are higher than in women who are pregnant with female fetuses, Dr. Nasrallah said. This is tied to higher numbers of proinflammatory cytokines present in male fetuses. In female fetuses, there are lower levels of interferon-gamma and interleukin (IL)-12 in the first trimester, and higher levels of IL-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor B, IL-5, and IL-10 in the second trimester.

In particular, the perinatal period is a time of great risk for depression and anxiety. Women are also at risk for postpartum depression, particularly women with bipolar disorder, Dr. Nasrallah said.

“Cytokine interleukin-10 and interleukin-6 are both increased during psychosis and during depression, so you can see the vulnerability for developing postpartum depression.” Some women “have other genes that make them susceptible for mood disorders, and the pregnancy can push them over the edge,” he said.

If women have bipolar disorder prior to delivery, “they have a very high risk of postpartum depression, possibly because of this immune dysregulation that serves the pregnancy, but unfortunately makes the woman vulnerable for postpartum psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

The effects of having children extend into middle age, Dr. Nasrallah said. Research has shown giving birth to more than one to two children can affect a woman’s risk for Alzheimer’s disease and risk for early-onset of the disease. Women who have three or fewer children later in life are also more likely to live longer, he said. In general, a longer reproductive period, duration of breastfeeding, and low number of pregnancies result in better cognition, while younger age at first pregnancy leads to worse cognition.

So-called pregnancy brain causes some cognitive functions to decline, and women may experience trouble concentrating and memory disturbance. “Other functions increase for the sake of the baby,” including a high reaction to threatening stimuli, absent-mindedness, motivation, reward, fear, executive functions, social cognition, salience, and attachment, Dr. Nasrallah said. In some cases, hormone-driven remodeling of the maternal brain can cause postpartum psychosis, which can reduce the anterior cingulate cortex, left parahippocampal gyrus volume, and left superior temporal gyrus volume.

Most changes in the brain, however, appear to be temporary, Dr. Nasrallah noted. Executive function improves 2-6 months after delivery, which includes goal and directed behavior, working memory, inhibitory function, and cognitive flexibility. In the postpartum period, “the gray matter increases in the first 3-4 months, especially in the brain areas that are involved in maternal behavior that includes amygdala, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex,” he added. “All of those changes correlate with positive maternal attachment, and so that makes it easier for the mother to bond with the baby.

“Don’t think of it as a negative,” he said. “The decline in brain volume is actually associated with better mothering and increased attachment between the mother and the baby, which is vital for survival of the baby.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Pregnancy and the postpartum period are a “very vulnerable time for mental disorders,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.

Courtney Hale/Getty Images

“Those changes that are helping pregnancy can also have psychiatric and psychopathological implications,” Dr. Nasrallah said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

Numerous dramatic changes in physiology, immune functions, cognition, neuroplasticity, and behavior occur during pregnancy, noted Dr. Nasrallah of the University of Cincinnati. For example, the volume of the brain actually decreases during pregnancy, but brain size recovers over the 6 months after delivery. “Clearly, this is a transitional and a transient phenomenon,” he said. “The decrease in brain volume is associated with changes in brain metabolism and an increase in intracellular pH after delivery.”

But these changes can also carry risks for psychiatric disorders, Dr. Nasrallah explained. Changes in the hippocampus, which is “very plastic throughout adulthood,” have been linked to aging, cognition, pregnancy, and motherhood. “The hippocampus is the ‘Grand Central Station’ of memory in the brain, and the hippocampus is affected by neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, which disproportionately affect women,” he said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Nasrallah said the hippocampus has particular susceptibility during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, or in women who have previously been pregnant.

Gender of the fetus can even affect the health of the mother, he added. In women who are pregnant with male fetuses, working memory and spatial ability are higher than in women who are pregnant with female fetuses, Dr. Nasrallah said. This is tied to higher numbers of proinflammatory cytokines present in male fetuses. In female fetuses, there are lower levels of interferon-gamma and interleukin (IL)-12 in the first trimester, and higher levels of IL-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor B, IL-5, and IL-10 in the second trimester.

In particular, the perinatal period is a time of great risk for depression and anxiety. Women are also at risk for postpartum depression, particularly women with bipolar disorder, Dr. Nasrallah said.

“Cytokine interleukin-10 and interleukin-6 are both increased during psychosis and during depression, so you can see the vulnerability for developing postpartum depression.” Some women “have other genes that make them susceptible for mood disorders, and the pregnancy can push them over the edge,” he said.

If women have bipolar disorder prior to delivery, “they have a very high risk of postpartum depression, possibly because of this immune dysregulation that serves the pregnancy, but unfortunately makes the woman vulnerable for postpartum psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

The effects of having children extend into middle age, Dr. Nasrallah said. Research has shown giving birth to more than one to two children can affect a woman’s risk for Alzheimer’s disease and risk for early-onset of the disease. Women who have three or fewer children later in life are also more likely to live longer, he said. In general, a longer reproductive period, duration of breastfeeding, and low number of pregnancies result in better cognition, while younger age at first pregnancy leads to worse cognition.

So-called pregnancy brain causes some cognitive functions to decline, and women may experience trouble concentrating and memory disturbance. “Other functions increase for the sake of the baby,” including a high reaction to threatening stimuli, absent-mindedness, motivation, reward, fear, executive functions, social cognition, salience, and attachment, Dr. Nasrallah said. In some cases, hormone-driven remodeling of the maternal brain can cause postpartum psychosis, which can reduce the anterior cingulate cortex, left parahippocampal gyrus volume, and left superior temporal gyrus volume.

Most changes in the brain, however, appear to be temporary, Dr. Nasrallah noted. Executive function improves 2-6 months after delivery, which includes goal and directed behavior, working memory, inhibitory function, and cognitive flexibility. In the postpartum period, “the gray matter increases in the first 3-4 months, especially in the brain areas that are involved in maternal behavior that includes amygdala, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex,” he added. “All of those changes correlate with positive maternal attachment, and so that makes it easier for the mother to bond with the baby.

“Don’t think of it as a negative,” he said. “The decline in brain volume is actually associated with better mothering and increased attachment between the mother and the baby, which is vital for survival of the baby.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Pregnancy and the postpartum period are a “very vulnerable time for mental disorders,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.

Courtney Hale/Getty Images

“Those changes that are helping pregnancy can also have psychiatric and psychopathological implications,” Dr. Nasrallah said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

Numerous dramatic changes in physiology, immune functions, cognition, neuroplasticity, and behavior occur during pregnancy, noted Dr. Nasrallah of the University of Cincinnati. For example, the volume of the brain actually decreases during pregnancy, but brain size recovers over the 6 months after delivery. “Clearly, this is a transitional and a transient phenomenon,” he said. “The decrease in brain volume is associated with changes in brain metabolism and an increase in intracellular pH after delivery.”

But these changes can also carry risks for psychiatric disorders, Dr. Nasrallah explained. Changes in the hippocampus, which is “very plastic throughout adulthood,” have been linked to aging, cognition, pregnancy, and motherhood. “The hippocampus is the ‘Grand Central Station’ of memory in the brain, and the hippocampus is affected by neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, which disproportionately affect women,” he said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Nasrallah said the hippocampus has particular susceptibility during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, or in women who have previously been pregnant.

Gender of the fetus can even affect the health of the mother, he added. In women who are pregnant with male fetuses, working memory and spatial ability are higher than in women who are pregnant with female fetuses, Dr. Nasrallah said. This is tied to higher numbers of proinflammatory cytokines present in male fetuses. In female fetuses, there are lower levels of interferon-gamma and interleukin (IL)-12 in the first trimester, and higher levels of IL-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor B, IL-5, and IL-10 in the second trimester.

In particular, the perinatal period is a time of great risk for depression and anxiety. Women are also at risk for postpartum depression, particularly women with bipolar disorder, Dr. Nasrallah said.

“Cytokine interleukin-10 and interleukin-6 are both increased during psychosis and during depression, so you can see the vulnerability for developing postpartum depression.” Some women “have other genes that make them susceptible for mood disorders, and the pregnancy can push them over the edge,” he said.

If women have bipolar disorder prior to delivery, “they have a very high risk of postpartum depression, possibly because of this immune dysregulation that serves the pregnancy, but unfortunately makes the woman vulnerable for postpartum psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

The effects of having children extend into middle age, Dr. Nasrallah said. Research has shown giving birth to more than one to two children can affect a woman’s risk for Alzheimer’s disease and risk for early-onset of the disease. Women who have three or fewer children later in life are also more likely to live longer, he said. In general, a longer reproductive period, duration of breastfeeding, and low number of pregnancies result in better cognition, while younger age at first pregnancy leads to worse cognition.

So-called pregnancy brain causes some cognitive functions to decline, and women may experience trouble concentrating and memory disturbance. “Other functions increase for the sake of the baby,” including a high reaction to threatening stimuli, absent-mindedness, motivation, reward, fear, executive functions, social cognition, salience, and attachment, Dr. Nasrallah said. In some cases, hormone-driven remodeling of the maternal brain can cause postpartum psychosis, which can reduce the anterior cingulate cortex, left parahippocampal gyrus volume, and left superior temporal gyrus volume.

Most changes in the brain, however, appear to be temporary, Dr. Nasrallah noted. Executive function improves 2-6 months after delivery, which includes goal and directed behavior, working memory, inhibitory function, and cognitive flexibility. In the postpartum period, “the gray matter increases in the first 3-4 months, especially in the brain areas that are involved in maternal behavior that includes amygdala, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex,” he added. “All of those changes correlate with positive maternal attachment, and so that makes it easier for the mother to bond with the baby.

“Don’t think of it as a negative,” he said. “The decline in brain volume is actually associated with better mothering and increased attachment between the mother and the baby, which is vital for survival of the baby.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Two new studies highlight the importance of early intervention in first-episode psychosis (FEP).

In the first study, Australian investigators conclude that, for some FEP patients, early psychosocial interventions may fend off the need for immediate treatment with antipsychotic medications.

In the second study, UK researchers show that long duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) is linked to a significantly reduced treatment response.

For both studies, the findings highlight the importance of rapid access to a comprehensive range of treatments in the first weeks after FEP onset.

“In a select group of people with first-episode psychosis, we found there was no difference in symptoms and functioning between those who had antipsychotic medication and those who didn’t,” lead author Shona M. Francey, PhD, clinical psychologist at Orygen, the National Center of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Parkville, Australia, told Medscape Medical News.

“These findings supported our idea that, in the early phases of psychosis, with close monitoring and good psychosocial intervention, antipsychotic medication can be delayed,” Francey said.

The Australian study was published in Schizophrenia Bulletin Open. The British study was published in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Adverse effects

Francey and colleagues note that, in comparison with standard treatment, early interventions produce superior outcomes for patients with psychosis. Although there are a variety of treatment options, low-dose second-generation antipsychotics typically play a central role.

However, atypical antipsychotics have rapid metabolic side effects, including weight gain and altered glucose metabolism, that increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and premature mortality. Importantly, such adverse effects are amplified among patients with FEP, who tend to be younger and treatment naive.

On the other hand, a growing body of evidence shows the benefit of nonpharmacologic interventions for patients with FEP, the investigators note. In addition, clinical staging models appear to support the use of less aggressive treatment early in the disease course.

“We have been working in early intervention for psychosis for a number of years and have found it’s possible to intervene early with young people and either prevent the onset of psychosis or ameliorate its impact,” said Francey.

“Since we can see some improvement in people in the prepsychotic phase, we wanted to know if we can also see some benefit without medication after the onset of what we would call full-threshold psychosis,” she added.

Staged Treatment and Acceptability Guidelines in Early Psychosis (STAGES) was a 6-month, triple-blind, randomized controlled noninferiority study that included 90 participants between the ages of 15 and 25 years who had FEP.

To maximize safety, patients were required to have low levels of suicidality and aggression, a DUP of less than 6 months, and to be living in stable accommodation with social support.

Participants were randomly assigned to two groups – one in which patients underwent intensive psychosocial therapy and received low-dose antipsychotic medication (n = 44), and one in which patients underwent intensive psychosocial therapy and were given placebo (n = 46).

Depending on the timing of study enrollment, those in the medication group received risperidone 1 mg or paliperidone 3 mg.

The psychosocial intervention consisted of cognitive-behavioral case management (CBCM), an intervention developed specifically for patients with early psychosis that is strongly focused on therapeutic engagement.

CBCM delivers formulation-driven cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychoeducation within a therapeutic case management framework, Francey said.

The primary outcome was level of functioning at 6, 12, and 24 months, as measured by the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS). The primary prespecified endpoint was outcome at 6 months. A noninferiority margin of 10.5 on the SOFAS was used as the smallest value representing a clinically important effect.

Other assessment tools included the BPRS-4 to test for positive psychotic symptoms, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety.

At baseline, the two treatment groups were comparable with respect to all measures of functioning and psychopathology.

The study’s discontinuation rate was high. At 6 months, only 16 patients in the psychosocial group had completed therapy, compared with 11 in the antipsychotic group.

At this point, the two groups were comparable in terms of psychopathology and functioning ratings. Both groups had lower symptoms, higher functioning scores, and higher Quality of Life Scale (QLS) scores than at baseline.

SOFAS scores were not significantly different between the groups at this time point. The mean score was 61.7 ± 16.8 in the psychosocial group and 61.5 ± 13.4 in the medication group.

The researchers note that, because the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) was less than the study’s a priori inferiority margin of 10.5, psychosocial therapy was not inferior to medication at the 6-month assessment point.
 

Antipsychotics: Use with caution

Although between-group differences in SOFAS scores were not significant at 12 and 24 months, noninferiority of psychosocial therapy alone could not be confirmed because the CIs included the inferiority margin at each time point.

The two groups were statistically comparable at 6 months with respect to all other measures of psychopathology and the QLS. Similar results were found at 12 and 24 months.

The lone exception was with SANS at 12 months, on which patients in the placebo group had significantly higher negative symptom scores than the patients in the medication group.

There were no significant differences between study groups with respect to the number of adverse events.

Francey noted that the findings are important because they suggest that some young people with early-stage FEP and short DUP may be able to achieve symptom remission and function better without antipsychotic medication, provided they receive psychological interventions and comprehensive case management.

This challenges conventional wisdom that antipsychotic medications should be used for all patients who experience psychosis, she added.

However, managing FEP with psychosocial interventions should only be considered when it is safe to do so, Francey noted. In addition, the benefits of psychosocial interventions in these patients are less clear at 12 and 24 months.

Given these caveats, she noted that antipsychotics still play an important role in the treatment of these patients.

“I think there is definitely a place for medications. But I think they should be used cautiously, and you need a good, strong relationship between your treating team and your [patient] to work out what is needed and when it’s needed,” said Francey.

In addition, “when we do use medications, we should use the smallest possible dose that we can and also incorporate psychological support. I think that’s a really important part of it as well,” she said.
 

Timing matters

In the Lancet Psychiatry study, the researchers note that prolonged DUP is associated with worse outcomes, including increased symptoms, diminished social functioning, and poorer quality of life. The mechanism by which delayed treatment causes more harm remains unclear.

It is possible that symptoms simply accumulate over time, thereby worsening presentation. Another possibility is that continued psychosis after an initial critical period may cause long-term harm, they write.

They hypothesize that untreated psychosis can cause general treatment resistance by exacerbating underlying disease processes and that such damage progresses faster in the early stages of illness and then slows over time.

In addition, socially disruptive symptoms that are evident prior to FEP presentation may have a confounding effect, thereby leading to earlier presentation.

The investigators used data from two longitudinal cohort studies – the National Evaluation of Development of Early Intervention Network (NEDEN) study and the Outlook study.

In the NEDEN trial, 290 of 901 FEP patients (32%) were assessed within 3 weeks of presentation. In Outlook, 69 of 332 patients (21%) were assessed within 3 weeks of presentation.

In both studies, patients were examined at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, the Mania Rating Scale, the Insight Scale, and SOFAS. The latter two measures were used only at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between DUP and outcomes.

In the NEDEN study, 751 patients were assessed at 6 months, and 719 were assessed at 12 months. In the Outlook study, 238 and 220 were assessed at the same two time points, respectively.

Results showed a curvilinear relationship between DUP and symptom severity. Longer DUP was predictive of reduced treatment response. However, patient response worsened more slowly as DUP lengthened.

For example, increasing DUP by ten times was predictive of less improvement in PANSS total score by 7.34 (95% CI, 5.76 – 8.92; P < .0001) in NEDEN and by 3.85 (95% CI, 1.69 – 600; P =. 0005) in Outlook. Nevertheless, longer DUP was not associated with worse presentation for any symptoms except depression in NEDEN.

The findings seem to support that the potential harm incurred by delaying treatment among patients with FEP is greatest in the early weeks of psychosis and then levels off, the investigators note.

Given these insights, mental health professionals might consider focusing their efforts on the early detection and treatment of patients for whom DUP is short.

Similarly, because DUP was directly associated with all symptoms, early access to comprehensive treatment “might be preferable to early delivery of particular treatments with particular effects (eg, dopamine antagonists),” they write.
 

“A pragmatic call”

Commenting on the British study in an accompanying editorial, Lena K. Palaniyappan, MD, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, and Rajeev Krishnadas, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, write that any illness left untreated can become more challenging to treat, including psychosis.

“This should make early intervention in psychosis a pragmatic call with no prima facie argument against it,” they write. A reduction in DUP “underpins the rationale behind early detection and intervention in psychosis.”

The editorialists note that the relationship between DUP and successful treatment in early psychosis “strengthens the argument for more proactive early assessment and intervention to shorten treatment delay.

“As we have learnt over the past two decades, even punctual treatment when symptoms first arise continues to be too late when it comes to psychosis,” they write.

Francey also recognizes the value of early intervention in FEP. However, she noted that comprehensive psychosocial therapy might well prove effective enough to stave off antipsychotic therapy in a certain subset of patients.

“For some people, antipsychotics may never need to be introduced,” she said. “Some people recover from their first episode of psychosis and don’t go on to have any more, while others have an episodic illness,” she said.

If another episode develops and the symptoms come back, further psychosocial interventions could then be tried “or you might want to move on” to psychotic medication “because trying to get people better and functioning as well as they can is our primary aim,” Francey said.

The STAGES study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The British study was funded by the UK Department of Health, the National Institute of Health Research, and the Medical Research Council. Francey and Krishnadas have reported no relevant financial relationships. Palaniyappan has received grants and personal fees from Janssen Canada and Otsuka Canada, grants from Sunovion, and personal fees from SPMM Course UK and the Canadian Psychiatric Association.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new studies highlight the importance of early intervention in first-episode psychosis (FEP).

In the first study, Australian investigators conclude that, for some FEP patients, early psychosocial interventions may fend off the need for immediate treatment with antipsychotic medications.

In the second study, UK researchers show that long duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) is linked to a significantly reduced treatment response.

For both studies, the findings highlight the importance of rapid access to a comprehensive range of treatments in the first weeks after FEP onset.

“In a select group of people with first-episode psychosis, we found there was no difference in symptoms and functioning between those who had antipsychotic medication and those who didn’t,” lead author Shona M. Francey, PhD, clinical psychologist at Orygen, the National Center of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Parkville, Australia, told Medscape Medical News.

“These findings supported our idea that, in the early phases of psychosis, with close monitoring and good psychosocial intervention, antipsychotic medication can be delayed,” Francey said.

The Australian study was published in Schizophrenia Bulletin Open. The British study was published in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Adverse effects

Francey and colleagues note that, in comparison with standard treatment, early interventions produce superior outcomes for patients with psychosis. Although there are a variety of treatment options, low-dose second-generation antipsychotics typically play a central role.

However, atypical antipsychotics have rapid metabolic side effects, including weight gain and altered glucose metabolism, that increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and premature mortality. Importantly, such adverse effects are amplified among patients with FEP, who tend to be younger and treatment naive.

On the other hand, a growing body of evidence shows the benefit of nonpharmacologic interventions for patients with FEP, the investigators note. In addition, clinical staging models appear to support the use of less aggressive treatment early in the disease course.

“We have been working in early intervention for psychosis for a number of years and have found it’s possible to intervene early with young people and either prevent the onset of psychosis or ameliorate its impact,” said Francey.

“Since we can see some improvement in people in the prepsychotic phase, we wanted to know if we can also see some benefit without medication after the onset of what we would call full-threshold psychosis,” she added.

Staged Treatment and Acceptability Guidelines in Early Psychosis (STAGES) was a 6-month, triple-blind, randomized controlled noninferiority study that included 90 participants between the ages of 15 and 25 years who had FEP.

To maximize safety, patients were required to have low levels of suicidality and aggression, a DUP of less than 6 months, and to be living in stable accommodation with social support.

Participants were randomly assigned to two groups – one in which patients underwent intensive psychosocial therapy and received low-dose antipsychotic medication (n = 44), and one in which patients underwent intensive psychosocial therapy and were given placebo (n = 46).

Depending on the timing of study enrollment, those in the medication group received risperidone 1 mg or paliperidone 3 mg.

The psychosocial intervention consisted of cognitive-behavioral case management (CBCM), an intervention developed specifically for patients with early psychosis that is strongly focused on therapeutic engagement.

CBCM delivers formulation-driven cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychoeducation within a therapeutic case management framework, Francey said.

The primary outcome was level of functioning at 6, 12, and 24 months, as measured by the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS). The primary prespecified endpoint was outcome at 6 months. A noninferiority margin of 10.5 on the SOFAS was used as the smallest value representing a clinically important effect.

Other assessment tools included the BPRS-4 to test for positive psychotic symptoms, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety.

At baseline, the two treatment groups were comparable with respect to all measures of functioning and psychopathology.

The study’s discontinuation rate was high. At 6 months, only 16 patients in the psychosocial group had completed therapy, compared with 11 in the antipsychotic group.

At this point, the two groups were comparable in terms of psychopathology and functioning ratings. Both groups had lower symptoms, higher functioning scores, and higher Quality of Life Scale (QLS) scores than at baseline.

SOFAS scores were not significantly different between the groups at this time point. The mean score was 61.7 ± 16.8 in the psychosocial group and 61.5 ± 13.4 in the medication group.

The researchers note that, because the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) was less than the study’s a priori inferiority margin of 10.5, psychosocial therapy was not inferior to medication at the 6-month assessment point.
 

Antipsychotics: Use with caution

Although between-group differences in SOFAS scores were not significant at 12 and 24 months, noninferiority of psychosocial therapy alone could not be confirmed because the CIs included the inferiority margin at each time point.

The two groups were statistically comparable at 6 months with respect to all other measures of psychopathology and the QLS. Similar results were found at 12 and 24 months.

The lone exception was with SANS at 12 months, on which patients in the placebo group had significantly higher negative symptom scores than the patients in the medication group.

There were no significant differences between study groups with respect to the number of adverse events.

Francey noted that the findings are important because they suggest that some young people with early-stage FEP and short DUP may be able to achieve symptom remission and function better without antipsychotic medication, provided they receive psychological interventions and comprehensive case management.

This challenges conventional wisdom that antipsychotic medications should be used for all patients who experience psychosis, she added.

However, managing FEP with psychosocial interventions should only be considered when it is safe to do so, Francey noted. In addition, the benefits of psychosocial interventions in these patients are less clear at 12 and 24 months.

Given these caveats, she noted that antipsychotics still play an important role in the treatment of these patients.

“I think there is definitely a place for medications. But I think they should be used cautiously, and you need a good, strong relationship between your treating team and your [patient] to work out what is needed and when it’s needed,” said Francey.

In addition, “when we do use medications, we should use the smallest possible dose that we can and also incorporate psychological support. I think that’s a really important part of it as well,” she said.
 

Timing matters

In the Lancet Psychiatry study, the researchers note that prolonged DUP is associated with worse outcomes, including increased symptoms, diminished social functioning, and poorer quality of life. The mechanism by which delayed treatment causes more harm remains unclear.

It is possible that symptoms simply accumulate over time, thereby worsening presentation. Another possibility is that continued psychosis after an initial critical period may cause long-term harm, they write.

They hypothesize that untreated psychosis can cause general treatment resistance by exacerbating underlying disease processes and that such damage progresses faster in the early stages of illness and then slows over time.

In addition, socially disruptive symptoms that are evident prior to FEP presentation may have a confounding effect, thereby leading to earlier presentation.

The investigators used data from two longitudinal cohort studies – the National Evaluation of Development of Early Intervention Network (NEDEN) study and the Outlook study.

In the NEDEN trial, 290 of 901 FEP patients (32%) were assessed within 3 weeks of presentation. In Outlook, 69 of 332 patients (21%) were assessed within 3 weeks of presentation.

In both studies, patients were examined at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, the Mania Rating Scale, the Insight Scale, and SOFAS. The latter two measures were used only at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between DUP and outcomes.

In the NEDEN study, 751 patients were assessed at 6 months, and 719 were assessed at 12 months. In the Outlook study, 238 and 220 were assessed at the same two time points, respectively.

Results showed a curvilinear relationship between DUP and symptom severity. Longer DUP was predictive of reduced treatment response. However, patient response worsened more slowly as DUP lengthened.

For example, increasing DUP by ten times was predictive of less improvement in PANSS total score by 7.34 (95% CI, 5.76 – 8.92; P < .0001) in NEDEN and by 3.85 (95% CI, 1.69 – 600; P =. 0005) in Outlook. Nevertheless, longer DUP was not associated with worse presentation for any symptoms except depression in NEDEN.

The findings seem to support that the potential harm incurred by delaying treatment among patients with FEP is greatest in the early weeks of psychosis and then levels off, the investigators note.

Given these insights, mental health professionals might consider focusing their efforts on the early detection and treatment of patients for whom DUP is short.

Similarly, because DUP was directly associated with all symptoms, early access to comprehensive treatment “might be preferable to early delivery of particular treatments with particular effects (eg, dopamine antagonists),” they write.
 

“A pragmatic call”

Commenting on the British study in an accompanying editorial, Lena K. Palaniyappan, MD, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, and Rajeev Krishnadas, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, write that any illness left untreated can become more challenging to treat, including psychosis.

“This should make early intervention in psychosis a pragmatic call with no prima facie argument against it,” they write. A reduction in DUP “underpins the rationale behind early detection and intervention in psychosis.”

The editorialists note that the relationship between DUP and successful treatment in early psychosis “strengthens the argument for more proactive early assessment and intervention to shorten treatment delay.

“As we have learnt over the past two decades, even punctual treatment when symptoms first arise continues to be too late when it comes to psychosis,” they write.

Francey also recognizes the value of early intervention in FEP. However, she noted that comprehensive psychosocial therapy might well prove effective enough to stave off antipsychotic therapy in a certain subset of patients.

“For some people, antipsychotics may never need to be introduced,” she said. “Some people recover from their first episode of psychosis and don’t go on to have any more, while others have an episodic illness,” she said.

If another episode develops and the symptoms come back, further psychosocial interventions could then be tried “or you might want to move on” to psychotic medication “because trying to get people better and functioning as well as they can is our primary aim,” Francey said.

The STAGES study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The British study was funded by the UK Department of Health, the National Institute of Health Research, and the Medical Research Council. Francey and Krishnadas have reported no relevant financial relationships. Palaniyappan has received grants and personal fees from Janssen Canada and Otsuka Canada, grants from Sunovion, and personal fees from SPMM Course UK and the Canadian Psychiatric Association.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new studies highlight the importance of early intervention in first-episode psychosis (FEP).

In the first study, Australian investigators conclude that, for some FEP patients, early psychosocial interventions may fend off the need for immediate treatment with antipsychotic medications.

In the second study, UK researchers show that long duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) is linked to a significantly reduced treatment response.

For both studies, the findings highlight the importance of rapid access to a comprehensive range of treatments in the first weeks after FEP onset.

“In a select group of people with first-episode psychosis, we found there was no difference in symptoms and functioning between those who had antipsychotic medication and those who didn’t,” lead author Shona M. Francey, PhD, clinical psychologist at Orygen, the National Center of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Parkville, Australia, told Medscape Medical News.

“These findings supported our idea that, in the early phases of psychosis, with close monitoring and good psychosocial intervention, antipsychotic medication can be delayed,” Francey said.

The Australian study was published in Schizophrenia Bulletin Open. The British study was published in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Adverse effects

Francey and colleagues note that, in comparison with standard treatment, early interventions produce superior outcomes for patients with psychosis. Although there are a variety of treatment options, low-dose second-generation antipsychotics typically play a central role.

However, atypical antipsychotics have rapid metabolic side effects, including weight gain and altered glucose metabolism, that increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and premature mortality. Importantly, such adverse effects are amplified among patients with FEP, who tend to be younger and treatment naive.

On the other hand, a growing body of evidence shows the benefit of nonpharmacologic interventions for patients with FEP, the investigators note. In addition, clinical staging models appear to support the use of less aggressive treatment early in the disease course.

“We have been working in early intervention for psychosis for a number of years and have found it’s possible to intervene early with young people and either prevent the onset of psychosis or ameliorate its impact,” said Francey.

“Since we can see some improvement in people in the prepsychotic phase, we wanted to know if we can also see some benefit without medication after the onset of what we would call full-threshold psychosis,” she added.

Staged Treatment and Acceptability Guidelines in Early Psychosis (STAGES) was a 6-month, triple-blind, randomized controlled noninferiority study that included 90 participants between the ages of 15 and 25 years who had FEP.

To maximize safety, patients were required to have low levels of suicidality and aggression, a DUP of less than 6 months, and to be living in stable accommodation with social support.

Participants were randomly assigned to two groups – one in which patients underwent intensive psychosocial therapy and received low-dose antipsychotic medication (n = 44), and one in which patients underwent intensive psychosocial therapy and were given placebo (n = 46).

Depending on the timing of study enrollment, those in the medication group received risperidone 1 mg or paliperidone 3 mg.

The psychosocial intervention consisted of cognitive-behavioral case management (CBCM), an intervention developed specifically for patients with early psychosis that is strongly focused on therapeutic engagement.

CBCM delivers formulation-driven cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychoeducation within a therapeutic case management framework, Francey said.

The primary outcome was level of functioning at 6, 12, and 24 months, as measured by the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS). The primary prespecified endpoint was outcome at 6 months. A noninferiority margin of 10.5 on the SOFAS was used as the smallest value representing a clinically important effect.

Other assessment tools included the BPRS-4 to test for positive psychotic symptoms, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety.

At baseline, the two treatment groups were comparable with respect to all measures of functioning and psychopathology.

The study’s discontinuation rate was high. At 6 months, only 16 patients in the psychosocial group had completed therapy, compared with 11 in the antipsychotic group.

At this point, the two groups were comparable in terms of psychopathology and functioning ratings. Both groups had lower symptoms, higher functioning scores, and higher Quality of Life Scale (QLS) scores than at baseline.

SOFAS scores were not significantly different between the groups at this time point. The mean score was 61.7 ± 16.8 in the psychosocial group and 61.5 ± 13.4 in the medication group.

The researchers note that, because the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) was less than the study’s a priori inferiority margin of 10.5, psychosocial therapy was not inferior to medication at the 6-month assessment point.
 

Antipsychotics: Use with caution

Although between-group differences in SOFAS scores were not significant at 12 and 24 months, noninferiority of psychosocial therapy alone could not be confirmed because the CIs included the inferiority margin at each time point.

The two groups were statistically comparable at 6 months with respect to all other measures of psychopathology and the QLS. Similar results were found at 12 and 24 months.

The lone exception was with SANS at 12 months, on which patients in the placebo group had significantly higher negative symptom scores than the patients in the medication group.

There were no significant differences between study groups with respect to the number of adverse events.

Francey noted that the findings are important because they suggest that some young people with early-stage FEP and short DUP may be able to achieve symptom remission and function better without antipsychotic medication, provided they receive psychological interventions and comprehensive case management.

This challenges conventional wisdom that antipsychotic medications should be used for all patients who experience psychosis, she added.

However, managing FEP with psychosocial interventions should only be considered when it is safe to do so, Francey noted. In addition, the benefits of psychosocial interventions in these patients are less clear at 12 and 24 months.

Given these caveats, she noted that antipsychotics still play an important role in the treatment of these patients.

“I think there is definitely a place for medications. But I think they should be used cautiously, and you need a good, strong relationship between your treating team and your [patient] to work out what is needed and when it’s needed,” said Francey.

In addition, “when we do use medications, we should use the smallest possible dose that we can and also incorporate psychological support. I think that’s a really important part of it as well,” she said.
 

Timing matters

In the Lancet Psychiatry study, the researchers note that prolonged DUP is associated with worse outcomes, including increased symptoms, diminished social functioning, and poorer quality of life. The mechanism by which delayed treatment causes more harm remains unclear.

It is possible that symptoms simply accumulate over time, thereby worsening presentation. Another possibility is that continued psychosis after an initial critical period may cause long-term harm, they write.

They hypothesize that untreated psychosis can cause general treatment resistance by exacerbating underlying disease processes and that such damage progresses faster in the early stages of illness and then slows over time.

In addition, socially disruptive symptoms that are evident prior to FEP presentation may have a confounding effect, thereby leading to earlier presentation.

The investigators used data from two longitudinal cohort studies – the National Evaluation of Development of Early Intervention Network (NEDEN) study and the Outlook study.

In the NEDEN trial, 290 of 901 FEP patients (32%) were assessed within 3 weeks of presentation. In Outlook, 69 of 332 patients (21%) were assessed within 3 weeks of presentation.

In both studies, patients were examined at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, the Mania Rating Scale, the Insight Scale, and SOFAS. The latter two measures were used only at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between DUP and outcomes.

In the NEDEN study, 751 patients were assessed at 6 months, and 719 were assessed at 12 months. In the Outlook study, 238 and 220 were assessed at the same two time points, respectively.

Results showed a curvilinear relationship between DUP and symptom severity. Longer DUP was predictive of reduced treatment response. However, patient response worsened more slowly as DUP lengthened.

For example, increasing DUP by ten times was predictive of less improvement in PANSS total score by 7.34 (95% CI, 5.76 – 8.92; P < .0001) in NEDEN and by 3.85 (95% CI, 1.69 – 600; P =. 0005) in Outlook. Nevertheless, longer DUP was not associated with worse presentation for any symptoms except depression in NEDEN.

The findings seem to support that the potential harm incurred by delaying treatment among patients with FEP is greatest in the early weeks of psychosis and then levels off, the investigators note.

Given these insights, mental health professionals might consider focusing their efforts on the early detection and treatment of patients for whom DUP is short.

Similarly, because DUP was directly associated with all symptoms, early access to comprehensive treatment “might be preferable to early delivery of particular treatments with particular effects (eg, dopamine antagonists),” they write.
 

“A pragmatic call”

Commenting on the British study in an accompanying editorial, Lena K. Palaniyappan, MD, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, and Rajeev Krishnadas, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, write that any illness left untreated can become more challenging to treat, including psychosis.

“This should make early intervention in psychosis a pragmatic call with no prima facie argument against it,” they write. A reduction in DUP “underpins the rationale behind early detection and intervention in psychosis.”

The editorialists note that the relationship between DUP and successful treatment in early psychosis “strengthens the argument for more proactive early assessment and intervention to shorten treatment delay.

“As we have learnt over the past two decades, even punctual treatment when symptoms first arise continues to be too late when it comes to psychosis,” they write.

Francey also recognizes the value of early intervention in FEP. However, she noted that comprehensive psychosocial therapy might well prove effective enough to stave off antipsychotic therapy in a certain subset of patients.

“For some people, antipsychotics may never need to be introduced,” she said. “Some people recover from their first episode of psychosis and don’t go on to have any more, while others have an episodic illness,” she said.

If another episode develops and the symptoms come back, further psychosocial interventions could then be tried “or you might want to move on” to psychotic medication “because trying to get people better and functioning as well as they can is our primary aim,” Francey said.

The STAGES study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The British study was funded by the UK Department of Health, the National Institute of Health Research, and the Medical Research Council. Francey and Krishnadas have reported no relevant financial relationships. Palaniyappan has received grants and personal fees from Janssen Canada and Otsuka Canada, grants from Sunovion, and personal fees from SPMM Course UK and the Canadian Psychiatric Association.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic has, like it or not, made experimental labs rats out of us all.

Since the U.S. “shutdown” began in March, we have all had to adjust to a situation in which we are home more, stuck seeing less of our friends, exercising less, often eating and drinking more, or using recreational substances more – in part because of the severe stress. We have been ripped away from many of the social “anchors” of our weeks; that is, the spiritual, social and physical, and tactile supports that sustain and motivate us in our lives.

And yet, many of us, of all ages, stripes, and colors are thriving. Why is that so? Without necessarily being fully fledged, card carrying misanthropes, many of us are actually not bereft when forced to spend some alone time.

CANCER CIFTCI/Getty Images

We may be self-starters and have hobbies and interests that we may have neglected but can fall back on with alacrity. Activities such as gardening, cooking, reading, working at our day jobs, listening to music, streaming TV, and so on are now more available to us.

The pandemic has produced unforeseen side effects, such as decreased pollution, less seismic “noise” on our planet, increasingly bold activity by wild life, and we can actually hear bird songs in our yards. Likewise, the social isolation has enabled us to focus more on “back burner” projects and to motivate us toward accessing and achieving other internally driven goals.

Also, to many, it has provided a surprising and unexpected privilege to meaningfully connect while in close quarters with spouses, children, and other loved ones, which has improved and cemented relationships under some level of duress, perhaps.

Similarly, and perhaps surprisingly, in addition to the above reasons, many of our patients with chronic mental illness may be functioning reasonably well, too, even better than their “walking wounded” loved ones and peers. They may be reaping the rewards of many years of consistent biopsychosocial support in strong mental health programs.

But another reason might be the lowered expectations. As one stable patient with schizophrenia said, “No one is hassling me now; no one is aggravating me to go to this group or that, to leave the house to volunteer, to get a job. I’m just so much more relaxed; I’ve got this.” And certainly the Freudian “schadenfreude” defense has something to do with this as well. Seeing family members lose their jobs, become financially vulnerable, being unable to or stymied from demonstrating mastery in many different situations and skill sets elicit the empathy and galvanizes the support of well-managed patients with mental illness – already used to existential threats – for their generally higher functioning loved ones.

As one of my struggling patients said, “Welcome to my world!” Years of hardship, lack of intimate relationships because of social anxiety, and psychotic level obsessive-compulsive disorder have trained, indeed, inured her to the daily pain, constriction, and misery of social isolation. Her life, despite working full time, has remained static, while younger siblings have married, started a family, moved away. She is still living at home with her elderly parents. They now worry about catching COVID-19, while she is now their protector with roles reversed, doing their shopping, and providing moral support and encouragement for the whole family.

Many of us have lost jobs, been furloughed, seen our dreams disappear, and are unable to pay rent or mortgages. Those with chronic mental illness, especially those living in states with a strong social safety net, are continuing to receive their Social Security disability checks, and maintain their in-home health and family supports. They also have continued their adherence with the mental health system structure by continuing with telemedicine therapy and regular medications or monthly intramuscular shots. Their families are especially cognizant of the need for ongoing structure and stability, which is now easier to provide. And what of those patients who endured severe anxiety and panic disorders in their prepandemic states? It is true that many do require higher doses of their anxiolytics, especially benzodiazepines. They do know how to “roll with the punches” with their lifetime experience, as opposed to the “newbies” whose incipient anxiety is brought to the forefront and who might not even recognize these debilitating symptoms and are not keen, for reasons of stigma, to be seen by a mental health expert unless compelled to.

It is up to us as psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians to minimize dependence on those medications by using alternative non–dependence-forming anxiolytics and encouraging our patients to hone and develop the skills from cognitive-behavioral therapy. COVID-19 is just one more stressor, superimposed on many others, and unlikely to precipitate any “tipping point” in functioning, even if there are significant losses among loved ones to the virus.

How about our child and adolescent patients? As a rule of thumb, those with anxiety disorders, social anxiety, selective mutism – and those experiencing challenges and bullying in the rough and tumble world of schools – are doing significantly better. Those with ADHD and impulse control disorders, however, might be struggling with school, especially with Zoom calls and very high distractibility, boredom, and motivational challenges. They may need their doses of medications adjusted up, and their parents are struggling. The risk for unwitnessed and unmonitored abuse in home situations is higher.

Those with chronic mental illness often do have increased risk factors for COVID-19 that might be compounded by their psychopharmacologic treatment for conditions/behaviors such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and substance use. By proactively monitoring those comorbid disorders in a multimodal treatment program, we can help mitigate those baseline challenges.

This aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic is, alas, likely to prove to be an illusory positive “blip” on the radar screen for many with chronic mental illness. Nevertheless, the self-knowledge and awareness of hidden strengths rather than weakness, resilience rather than shrinking from challenges, is not insignificant. This “flight into normality” may be a change that can be internalized and nurtured once vaccines are available and life on planet Earth returns to a new normal.
 

Dr. Tofler is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic has, like it or not, made experimental labs rats out of us all.

Since the U.S. “shutdown” began in March, we have all had to adjust to a situation in which we are home more, stuck seeing less of our friends, exercising less, often eating and drinking more, or using recreational substances more – in part because of the severe stress. We have been ripped away from many of the social “anchors” of our weeks; that is, the spiritual, social and physical, and tactile supports that sustain and motivate us in our lives.

And yet, many of us, of all ages, stripes, and colors are thriving. Why is that so? Without necessarily being fully fledged, card carrying misanthropes, many of us are actually not bereft when forced to spend some alone time.

CANCER CIFTCI/Getty Images

We may be self-starters and have hobbies and interests that we may have neglected but can fall back on with alacrity. Activities such as gardening, cooking, reading, working at our day jobs, listening to music, streaming TV, and so on are now more available to us.

The pandemic has produced unforeseen side effects, such as decreased pollution, less seismic “noise” on our planet, increasingly bold activity by wild life, and we can actually hear bird songs in our yards. Likewise, the social isolation has enabled us to focus more on “back burner” projects and to motivate us toward accessing and achieving other internally driven goals.

Also, to many, it has provided a surprising and unexpected privilege to meaningfully connect while in close quarters with spouses, children, and other loved ones, which has improved and cemented relationships under some level of duress, perhaps.

Similarly, and perhaps surprisingly, in addition to the above reasons, many of our patients with chronic mental illness may be functioning reasonably well, too, even better than their “walking wounded” loved ones and peers. They may be reaping the rewards of many years of consistent biopsychosocial support in strong mental health programs.

But another reason might be the lowered expectations. As one stable patient with schizophrenia said, “No one is hassling me now; no one is aggravating me to go to this group or that, to leave the house to volunteer, to get a job. I’m just so much more relaxed; I’ve got this.” And certainly the Freudian “schadenfreude” defense has something to do with this as well. Seeing family members lose their jobs, become financially vulnerable, being unable to or stymied from demonstrating mastery in many different situations and skill sets elicit the empathy and galvanizes the support of well-managed patients with mental illness – already used to existential threats – for their generally higher functioning loved ones.

As one of my struggling patients said, “Welcome to my world!” Years of hardship, lack of intimate relationships because of social anxiety, and psychotic level obsessive-compulsive disorder have trained, indeed, inured her to the daily pain, constriction, and misery of social isolation. Her life, despite working full time, has remained static, while younger siblings have married, started a family, moved away. She is still living at home with her elderly parents. They now worry about catching COVID-19, while she is now their protector with roles reversed, doing their shopping, and providing moral support and encouragement for the whole family.

Many of us have lost jobs, been furloughed, seen our dreams disappear, and are unable to pay rent or mortgages. Those with chronic mental illness, especially those living in states with a strong social safety net, are continuing to receive their Social Security disability checks, and maintain their in-home health and family supports. They also have continued their adherence with the mental health system structure by continuing with telemedicine therapy and regular medications or monthly intramuscular shots. Their families are especially cognizant of the need for ongoing structure and stability, which is now easier to provide. And what of those patients who endured severe anxiety and panic disorders in their prepandemic states? It is true that many do require higher doses of their anxiolytics, especially benzodiazepines. They do know how to “roll with the punches” with their lifetime experience, as opposed to the “newbies” whose incipient anxiety is brought to the forefront and who might not even recognize these debilitating symptoms and are not keen, for reasons of stigma, to be seen by a mental health expert unless compelled to.

It is up to us as psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians to minimize dependence on those medications by using alternative non–dependence-forming anxiolytics and encouraging our patients to hone and develop the skills from cognitive-behavioral therapy. COVID-19 is just one more stressor, superimposed on many others, and unlikely to precipitate any “tipping point” in functioning, even if there are significant losses among loved ones to the virus.

How about our child and adolescent patients? As a rule of thumb, those with anxiety disorders, social anxiety, selective mutism – and those experiencing challenges and bullying in the rough and tumble world of schools – are doing significantly better. Those with ADHD and impulse control disorders, however, might be struggling with school, especially with Zoom calls and very high distractibility, boredom, and motivational challenges. They may need their doses of medications adjusted up, and their parents are struggling. The risk for unwitnessed and unmonitored abuse in home situations is higher.

Those with chronic mental illness often do have increased risk factors for COVID-19 that might be compounded by their psychopharmacologic treatment for conditions/behaviors such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and substance use. By proactively monitoring those comorbid disorders in a multimodal treatment program, we can help mitigate those baseline challenges.

This aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic is, alas, likely to prove to be an illusory positive “blip” on the radar screen for many with chronic mental illness. Nevertheless, the self-knowledge and awareness of hidden strengths rather than weakness, resilience rather than shrinking from challenges, is not insignificant. This “flight into normality” may be a change that can be internalized and nurtured once vaccines are available and life on planet Earth returns to a new normal.
 

Dr. Tofler is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic has, like it or not, made experimental labs rats out of us all.

Since the U.S. “shutdown” began in March, we have all had to adjust to a situation in which we are home more, stuck seeing less of our friends, exercising less, often eating and drinking more, or using recreational substances more – in part because of the severe stress. We have been ripped away from many of the social “anchors” of our weeks; that is, the spiritual, social and physical, and tactile supports that sustain and motivate us in our lives.

And yet, many of us, of all ages, stripes, and colors are thriving. Why is that so? Without necessarily being fully fledged, card carrying misanthropes, many of us are actually not bereft when forced to spend some alone time.

CANCER CIFTCI/Getty Images

We may be self-starters and have hobbies and interests that we may have neglected but can fall back on with alacrity. Activities such as gardening, cooking, reading, working at our day jobs, listening to music, streaming TV, and so on are now more available to us.

The pandemic has produced unforeseen side effects, such as decreased pollution, less seismic “noise” on our planet, increasingly bold activity by wild life, and we can actually hear bird songs in our yards. Likewise, the social isolation has enabled us to focus more on “back burner” projects and to motivate us toward accessing and achieving other internally driven goals.

Also, to many, it has provided a surprising and unexpected privilege to meaningfully connect while in close quarters with spouses, children, and other loved ones, which has improved and cemented relationships under some level of duress, perhaps.

Similarly, and perhaps surprisingly, in addition to the above reasons, many of our patients with chronic mental illness may be functioning reasonably well, too, even better than their “walking wounded” loved ones and peers. They may be reaping the rewards of many years of consistent biopsychosocial support in strong mental health programs.

But another reason might be the lowered expectations. As one stable patient with schizophrenia said, “No one is hassling me now; no one is aggravating me to go to this group or that, to leave the house to volunteer, to get a job. I’m just so much more relaxed; I’ve got this.” And certainly the Freudian “schadenfreude” defense has something to do with this as well. Seeing family members lose their jobs, become financially vulnerable, being unable to or stymied from demonstrating mastery in many different situations and skill sets elicit the empathy and galvanizes the support of well-managed patients with mental illness – already used to existential threats – for their generally higher functioning loved ones.

As one of my struggling patients said, “Welcome to my world!” Years of hardship, lack of intimate relationships because of social anxiety, and psychotic level obsessive-compulsive disorder have trained, indeed, inured her to the daily pain, constriction, and misery of social isolation. Her life, despite working full time, has remained static, while younger siblings have married, started a family, moved away. She is still living at home with her elderly parents. They now worry about catching COVID-19, while she is now their protector with roles reversed, doing their shopping, and providing moral support and encouragement for the whole family.

Many of us have lost jobs, been furloughed, seen our dreams disappear, and are unable to pay rent or mortgages. Those with chronic mental illness, especially those living in states with a strong social safety net, are continuing to receive their Social Security disability checks, and maintain their in-home health and family supports. They also have continued their adherence with the mental health system structure by continuing with telemedicine therapy and regular medications or monthly intramuscular shots. Their families are especially cognizant of the need for ongoing structure and stability, which is now easier to provide. And what of those patients who endured severe anxiety and panic disorders in their prepandemic states? It is true that many do require higher doses of their anxiolytics, especially benzodiazepines. They do know how to “roll with the punches” with their lifetime experience, as opposed to the “newbies” whose incipient anxiety is brought to the forefront and who might not even recognize these debilitating symptoms and are not keen, for reasons of stigma, to be seen by a mental health expert unless compelled to.

It is up to us as psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians to minimize dependence on those medications by using alternative non–dependence-forming anxiolytics and encouraging our patients to hone and develop the skills from cognitive-behavioral therapy. COVID-19 is just one more stressor, superimposed on many others, and unlikely to precipitate any “tipping point” in functioning, even if there are significant losses among loved ones to the virus.

How about our child and adolescent patients? As a rule of thumb, those with anxiety disorders, social anxiety, selective mutism – and those experiencing challenges and bullying in the rough and tumble world of schools – are doing significantly better. Those with ADHD and impulse control disorders, however, might be struggling with school, especially with Zoom calls and very high distractibility, boredom, and motivational challenges. They may need their doses of medications adjusted up, and their parents are struggling. The risk for unwitnessed and unmonitored abuse in home situations is higher.

Those with chronic mental illness often do have increased risk factors for COVID-19 that might be compounded by their psychopharmacologic treatment for conditions/behaviors such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and substance use. By proactively monitoring those comorbid disorders in a multimodal treatment program, we can help mitigate those baseline challenges.

This aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic is, alas, likely to prove to be an illusory positive “blip” on the radar screen for many with chronic mental illness. Nevertheless, the self-knowledge and awareness of hidden strengths rather than weakness, resilience rather than shrinking from challenges, is not insignificant. This “flight into normality” may be a change that can be internalized and nurtured once vaccines are available and life on planet Earth returns to a new normal.
 

Dr. Tofler is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

The medical community is about to find out how prepared it is for the double whammy of influenza and COVID-19 that has been predicted for the fall of 2020. The complexities of diagnosis, management of vulnerable patients, and overflowing medical centers that have made the COVID-19 crisis so brutal may all be exacerbated by the arrival of seasonal influenza.

Lewis Jay Kaplan, MD, FCCP, a critical care surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has seen his share of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the surgical ICU that he oversees. He’s approaching the upcoming flu season, poised to collide with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, ready to listen to each patient’s story to distinguish one from the other and determine treatment.

“The patients that have underlying comorbidities all have a story, and it’s up to you to figure out which chapter you’re in and how far along you happen to be,” he said. “It’s a very interesting approach to care, medical storytelling.”

With flu season closing in, pulmonologists are ruminating about how they’ll distinguish symptoms of COVID-19 and traditional influenza and how they’ll manage the most vulnerable patients, namely those with underlying respiratory disease and children. Influenza kills 12,000-61,000 people a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, and results in 140,000-810,00 hospitalizations. Having a flu season in the midst of a pandemic of a disease with multiple overlapping symptoms threatens to overwhelm practitioners, hospitals, and the health system.

Dr. Kaplan said each patient’s story can point to the correct clinical approach. “Instead of just sharing data when you are on rounds, you’re really telling someone’s story.” It arises from a series of questions about how the disease has impacted them, specifics of their presentation, how their signs and symptoms differ from the usual, and how they responded to treatment. “It also helps you to then take what you’re doing, which can seem very, very complicated to individuals who are not medically sophisticated, and then help them to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing at this point.”

That can help get through to a patient with respiratory disease who insists he or she has or doesn’t have COVID-19 rather than the flu. “They form a different group that brings with them different fears and concerns, and you have to help them navigate that, too: all of this data and your decision-making around testing and admissions, and what you can omit doing and what you must do help them to navigate their own story,” Dr. Kaplan said.

Benjamin D. Singer, MD, a pulmonologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, authored an editorial in Science Advances that addressed four factors that will determine the scope of flu spread in the upcoming season: rate of transmission; vaccination rates; coinfection rates; and health disparities in minority populations, which are prone to higher rates of flu as well as COVID-19.
 

Flu vaccine ‘extra important’

The convergence of COVID-19 and influenza has the potential to overwhelm the health system, said Daniel A. Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s in Boston. He coauthored a JAMA Insights clinical update on flu season during the COVID-19 pandemic that lists distinguishing and overlapping signs and symptoms of the two diseases.

The flu vaccine, he said, is “extra important this year,” especially in patients with existing respiratory disease, but COVID-19 has thrown up barriers to vaccination. Telemedicine has supplanted office visits. “People may miss that easy-touch opportunity to get the flu vaccine, so we have to be creative about making the flu vaccine highly accessible, maybe in nontraditional ways,” Dr. Solomon said. Some ideas he offered are pop-up vaccine fairs at schools and churches.

But just as COVID-19 may hinder flu vaccines, it may also be helping to mitigate flu transmission. “The interesting thing about transmission of the flu is that it’s transmitted the same way COVID is, so if we actually know how to decrease transmission of COVID, which we do – we’ve done it – we can actually decrease transmission of influenza as well,” Dr. Solomon said. Studies out of Hong Kong and Japan have reported a reduction in influenza cases during COVID-19 outbreaks in those places (Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e279-88; JAMA. 2020;323:1969-71).
 

Risks of coinfection

About one in four COVID-19 patients have been diagnosed with an additional respiratory infection, including influenza (JAMA. 2020:323:2085-6). Pulmonologists must keep that in mind when managing COVID-19 suspects, said Dr. Singer.

“While it is true that most of the time COVID-19 travels alone, we have numerous examples in the literature and in our own experience that COVID-19 is accompanied by either another virus or another bacterial infection, including influenza,” Dr. Singer said. “The distinction is important. One is just for diagnostic reasons and public reporting reasons, but also because flu and COVID-19 have different requirements for how you care for patients in terms of the health system.”

Clinical suspicion for coinfection should remain high if the community spread of both COVID-19 and influenza is high, said Megan Conroy, MD, chief pulmonary and critical care fellow at Ohio State University, Columbus. “As the coronavirus first took hold in the United States in March 2020, we were at the tail end of influenza season, so it’s hard to predict what the upcoming influenza season will really look like with regards to coinfection.”
 

Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu

Multiple signs and symptoms between COVID-19 and the flu overlap. They include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, cough, and fatigue. Nasal congestion and sore throat are characteristic of the flu; shortness of breath and loss of the sense of smell have been widely reported in COVID-19. “While many upper respiratory infections can result in loss of smell, this may be more prevalent in COVID-19,” Dr. Conroy said. Other symptoms unique to COVID-19 are GI symptoms such as diarrhea and skin rashes such as acral ischemia.

Testing, however, is the cornerstone of the differential diagnosis. “You can’t confidently distinguish between them on symptoms alone,” Dr. Conroy added.

“I think the challenge we’ll face as clinicians, is caring for people with nonspecific symptoms of a respiratory viral illness, especially in the early phase of the illness,” said Dr. Solomon.

But even after that, symptoms can be difficult to distinguish.

“Later in the illness, COVID is more associated with a hypercoagulable state,” he said. “It is more associated with viral pneumonia on chest imaging, like the diffuse ground-glass infiltrates that we’ve all gotten used to seeing – but flu can do both of those things as well. So, without a test, it’s impossible to distinguish between the two infections in the clinic.”

But testing can have its shortcomings when flu season clashes with the COVID-19 pandemic. “Getting the test is not the same as getting the test results,” Dr. Solomon added. “Though a lot of people can get a test, if it takes 7 or 8 days to get the test result back, the result is useless.”

Widespread, rapid testing also depends on having adequate supplies of viral media transport and swabs. “I think that this is what we should be focusing on now: scaling up access to rapid turnaround testing,” he said. Distinguishing between the two is also important to preserve hospital resources. COVID-19 has more rigorous standards than flu for personal protective equipment and isolation of patients within the hospital.

Having chronic lung disease isn’t necessarily a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 or the flu, or both, Dr. Solomon said. “It’s a risk factor for having severe disease.” Again, he noted that flu vaccines are still necessary in these patients, as well as patients of advanced age and underlying medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

In managing children, it’s important to keep in mind that they communicate differently about their illnesses than adults, said Dr. Kaplan. “They may not have the words to tell you the same kind of thing that the adult tells you.” That’s where family members can help to flesh out the history. “They may present with an initially much milder form, if you will, where they’re not as critical up front, but then that small proportion of them comes back with the multi-inflammatory syndrome and then they are profoundly ill.”

Younger people make up a larger share of COVID-19 patients now, compared with the initial wave that hit the Northeast in the spring, Dr. Kaplan said. “We don’t know if that’s because the virus is a little different or the people that are getting sick are a little bit different.”

The COVID-19 strain now emerging may be less virulent than the strain that hit in early spring, he said. “That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still profoundly critical ill people with COVID of many different age ranges, that is true, but there are a lot of people that we now see will test positive, but aren’t really as profoundly ill as when it first landed here in the United States.”

That may be somewhat welcome as flu season arrives.

The physicians interviewed have no relevant disclosures.

The medical community is about to find out how prepared it is for the double whammy of influenza and COVID-19 that has been predicted for the fall of 2020. The complexities of diagnosis, management of vulnerable patients, and overflowing medical centers that have made the COVID-19 crisis so brutal may all be exacerbated by the arrival of seasonal influenza.

Lewis Jay Kaplan, MD, FCCP, a critical care surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has seen his share of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the surgical ICU that he oversees. He’s approaching the upcoming flu season, poised to collide with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, ready to listen to each patient’s story to distinguish one from the other and determine treatment.

“The patients that have underlying comorbidities all have a story, and it’s up to you to figure out which chapter you’re in and how far along you happen to be,” he said. “It’s a very interesting approach to care, medical storytelling.”

With flu season closing in, pulmonologists are ruminating about how they’ll distinguish symptoms of COVID-19 and traditional influenza and how they’ll manage the most vulnerable patients, namely those with underlying respiratory disease and children. Influenza kills 12,000-61,000 people a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, and results in 140,000-810,00 hospitalizations. Having a flu season in the midst of a pandemic of a disease with multiple overlapping symptoms threatens to overwhelm practitioners, hospitals, and the health system.

Dr. Kaplan said each patient’s story can point to the correct clinical approach. “Instead of just sharing data when you are on rounds, you’re really telling someone’s story.” It arises from a series of questions about how the disease has impacted them, specifics of their presentation, how their signs and symptoms differ from the usual, and how they responded to treatment. “It also helps you to then take what you’re doing, which can seem very, very complicated to individuals who are not medically sophisticated, and then help them to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing at this point.”

That can help get through to a patient with respiratory disease who insists he or she has or doesn’t have COVID-19 rather than the flu. “They form a different group that brings with them different fears and concerns, and you have to help them navigate that, too: all of this data and your decision-making around testing and admissions, and what you can omit doing and what you must do help them to navigate their own story,” Dr. Kaplan said.

Benjamin D. Singer, MD, a pulmonologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, authored an editorial in Science Advances that addressed four factors that will determine the scope of flu spread in the upcoming season: rate of transmission; vaccination rates; coinfection rates; and health disparities in minority populations, which are prone to higher rates of flu as well as COVID-19.
 

Flu vaccine ‘extra important’

The convergence of COVID-19 and influenza has the potential to overwhelm the health system, said Daniel A. Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s in Boston. He coauthored a JAMA Insights clinical update on flu season during the COVID-19 pandemic that lists distinguishing and overlapping signs and symptoms of the two diseases.

The flu vaccine, he said, is “extra important this year,” especially in patients with existing respiratory disease, but COVID-19 has thrown up barriers to vaccination. Telemedicine has supplanted office visits. “People may miss that easy-touch opportunity to get the flu vaccine, so we have to be creative about making the flu vaccine highly accessible, maybe in nontraditional ways,” Dr. Solomon said. Some ideas he offered are pop-up vaccine fairs at schools and churches.

But just as COVID-19 may hinder flu vaccines, it may also be helping to mitigate flu transmission. “The interesting thing about transmission of the flu is that it’s transmitted the same way COVID is, so if we actually know how to decrease transmission of COVID, which we do – we’ve done it – we can actually decrease transmission of influenza as well,” Dr. Solomon said. Studies out of Hong Kong and Japan have reported a reduction in influenza cases during COVID-19 outbreaks in those places (Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e279-88; JAMA. 2020;323:1969-71).
 

Risks of coinfection

About one in four COVID-19 patients have been diagnosed with an additional respiratory infection, including influenza (JAMA. 2020:323:2085-6). Pulmonologists must keep that in mind when managing COVID-19 suspects, said Dr. Singer.

“While it is true that most of the time COVID-19 travels alone, we have numerous examples in the literature and in our own experience that COVID-19 is accompanied by either another virus or another bacterial infection, including influenza,” Dr. Singer said. “The distinction is important. One is just for diagnostic reasons and public reporting reasons, but also because flu and COVID-19 have different requirements for how you care for patients in terms of the health system.”

Clinical suspicion for coinfection should remain high if the community spread of both COVID-19 and influenza is high, said Megan Conroy, MD, chief pulmonary and critical care fellow at Ohio State University, Columbus. “As the coronavirus first took hold in the United States in March 2020, we were at the tail end of influenza season, so it’s hard to predict what the upcoming influenza season will really look like with regards to coinfection.”
 

Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu

Multiple signs and symptoms between COVID-19 and the flu overlap. They include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, cough, and fatigue. Nasal congestion and sore throat are characteristic of the flu; shortness of breath and loss of the sense of smell have been widely reported in COVID-19. “While many upper respiratory infections can result in loss of smell, this may be more prevalent in COVID-19,” Dr. Conroy said. Other symptoms unique to COVID-19 are GI symptoms such as diarrhea and skin rashes such as acral ischemia.

Testing, however, is the cornerstone of the differential diagnosis. “You can’t confidently distinguish between them on symptoms alone,” Dr. Conroy added.

“I think the challenge we’ll face as clinicians, is caring for people with nonspecific symptoms of a respiratory viral illness, especially in the early phase of the illness,” said Dr. Solomon.

But even after that, symptoms can be difficult to distinguish.

“Later in the illness, COVID is more associated with a hypercoagulable state,” he said. “It is more associated with viral pneumonia on chest imaging, like the diffuse ground-glass infiltrates that we’ve all gotten used to seeing – but flu can do both of those things as well. So, without a test, it’s impossible to distinguish between the two infections in the clinic.”

But testing can have its shortcomings when flu season clashes with the COVID-19 pandemic. “Getting the test is not the same as getting the test results,” Dr. Solomon added. “Though a lot of people can get a test, if it takes 7 or 8 days to get the test result back, the result is useless.”

Widespread, rapid testing also depends on having adequate supplies of viral media transport and swabs. “I think that this is what we should be focusing on now: scaling up access to rapid turnaround testing,” he said. Distinguishing between the two is also important to preserve hospital resources. COVID-19 has more rigorous standards than flu for personal protective equipment and isolation of patients within the hospital.

Having chronic lung disease isn’t necessarily a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 or the flu, or both, Dr. Solomon said. “It’s a risk factor for having severe disease.” Again, he noted that flu vaccines are still necessary in these patients, as well as patients of advanced age and underlying medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

In managing children, it’s important to keep in mind that they communicate differently about their illnesses than adults, said Dr. Kaplan. “They may not have the words to tell you the same kind of thing that the adult tells you.” That’s where family members can help to flesh out the history. “They may present with an initially much milder form, if you will, where they’re not as critical up front, but then that small proportion of them comes back with the multi-inflammatory syndrome and then they are profoundly ill.”

Younger people make up a larger share of COVID-19 patients now, compared with the initial wave that hit the Northeast in the spring, Dr. Kaplan said. “We don’t know if that’s because the virus is a little different or the people that are getting sick are a little bit different.”

The COVID-19 strain now emerging may be less virulent than the strain that hit in early spring, he said. “That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still profoundly critical ill people with COVID of many different age ranges, that is true, but there are a lot of people that we now see will test positive, but aren’t really as profoundly ill as when it first landed here in the United States.”

That may be somewhat welcome as flu season arrives.

The physicians interviewed have no relevant disclosures.

The medical community is about to find out how prepared it is for the double whammy of influenza and COVID-19 that has been predicted for the fall of 2020. The complexities of diagnosis, management of vulnerable patients, and overflowing medical centers that have made the COVID-19 crisis so brutal may all be exacerbated by the arrival of seasonal influenza.

Lewis Jay Kaplan, MD, FCCP, a critical care surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has seen his share of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the surgical ICU that he oversees. He’s approaching the upcoming flu season, poised to collide with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, ready to listen to each patient’s story to distinguish one from the other and determine treatment.

“The patients that have underlying comorbidities all have a story, and it’s up to you to figure out which chapter you’re in and how far along you happen to be,” he said. “It’s a very interesting approach to care, medical storytelling.”

With flu season closing in, pulmonologists are ruminating about how they’ll distinguish symptoms of COVID-19 and traditional influenza and how they’ll manage the most vulnerable patients, namely those with underlying respiratory disease and children. Influenza kills 12,000-61,000 people a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, and results in 140,000-810,00 hospitalizations. Having a flu season in the midst of a pandemic of a disease with multiple overlapping symptoms threatens to overwhelm practitioners, hospitals, and the health system.

Dr. Kaplan said each patient’s story can point to the correct clinical approach. “Instead of just sharing data when you are on rounds, you’re really telling someone’s story.” It arises from a series of questions about how the disease has impacted them, specifics of their presentation, how their signs and symptoms differ from the usual, and how they responded to treatment. “It also helps you to then take what you’re doing, which can seem very, very complicated to individuals who are not medically sophisticated, and then help them to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing at this point.”

That can help get through to a patient with respiratory disease who insists he or she has or doesn’t have COVID-19 rather than the flu. “They form a different group that brings with them different fears and concerns, and you have to help them navigate that, too: all of this data and your decision-making around testing and admissions, and what you can omit doing and what you must do help them to navigate their own story,” Dr. Kaplan said.

Benjamin D. Singer, MD, a pulmonologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, authored an editorial in Science Advances that addressed four factors that will determine the scope of flu spread in the upcoming season: rate of transmission; vaccination rates; coinfection rates; and health disparities in minority populations, which are prone to higher rates of flu as well as COVID-19.
 

Flu vaccine ‘extra important’

The convergence of COVID-19 and influenza has the potential to overwhelm the health system, said Daniel A. Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s in Boston. He coauthored a JAMA Insights clinical update on flu season during the COVID-19 pandemic that lists distinguishing and overlapping signs and symptoms of the two diseases.

The flu vaccine, he said, is “extra important this year,” especially in patients with existing respiratory disease, but COVID-19 has thrown up barriers to vaccination. Telemedicine has supplanted office visits. “People may miss that easy-touch opportunity to get the flu vaccine, so we have to be creative about making the flu vaccine highly accessible, maybe in nontraditional ways,” Dr. Solomon said. Some ideas he offered are pop-up vaccine fairs at schools and churches.

But just as COVID-19 may hinder flu vaccines, it may also be helping to mitigate flu transmission. “The interesting thing about transmission of the flu is that it’s transmitted the same way COVID is, so if we actually know how to decrease transmission of COVID, which we do – we’ve done it – we can actually decrease transmission of influenza as well,” Dr. Solomon said. Studies out of Hong Kong and Japan have reported a reduction in influenza cases during COVID-19 outbreaks in those places (Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e279-88; JAMA. 2020;323:1969-71).
 

Risks of coinfection

About one in four COVID-19 patients have been diagnosed with an additional respiratory infection, including influenza (JAMA. 2020:323:2085-6). Pulmonologists must keep that in mind when managing COVID-19 suspects, said Dr. Singer.

“While it is true that most of the time COVID-19 travels alone, we have numerous examples in the literature and in our own experience that COVID-19 is accompanied by either another virus or another bacterial infection, including influenza,” Dr. Singer said. “The distinction is important. One is just for diagnostic reasons and public reporting reasons, but also because flu and COVID-19 have different requirements for how you care for patients in terms of the health system.”

Clinical suspicion for coinfection should remain high if the community spread of both COVID-19 and influenza is high, said Megan Conroy, MD, chief pulmonary and critical care fellow at Ohio State University, Columbus. “As the coronavirus first took hold in the United States in March 2020, we were at the tail end of influenza season, so it’s hard to predict what the upcoming influenza season will really look like with regards to coinfection.”
 

Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu

Multiple signs and symptoms between COVID-19 and the flu overlap. They include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, cough, and fatigue. Nasal congestion and sore throat are characteristic of the flu; shortness of breath and loss of the sense of smell have been widely reported in COVID-19. “While many upper respiratory infections can result in loss of smell, this may be more prevalent in COVID-19,” Dr. Conroy said. Other symptoms unique to COVID-19 are GI symptoms such as diarrhea and skin rashes such as acral ischemia.

Testing, however, is the cornerstone of the differential diagnosis. “You can’t confidently distinguish between them on symptoms alone,” Dr. Conroy added.

“I think the challenge we’ll face as clinicians, is caring for people with nonspecific symptoms of a respiratory viral illness, especially in the early phase of the illness,” said Dr. Solomon.

But even after that, symptoms can be difficult to distinguish.

“Later in the illness, COVID is more associated with a hypercoagulable state,” he said. “It is more associated with viral pneumonia on chest imaging, like the diffuse ground-glass infiltrates that we’ve all gotten used to seeing – but flu can do both of those things as well. So, without a test, it’s impossible to distinguish between the two infections in the clinic.”

But testing can have its shortcomings when flu season clashes with the COVID-19 pandemic. “Getting the test is not the same as getting the test results,” Dr. Solomon added. “Though a lot of people can get a test, if it takes 7 or 8 days to get the test result back, the result is useless.”

Widespread, rapid testing also depends on having adequate supplies of viral media transport and swabs. “I think that this is what we should be focusing on now: scaling up access to rapid turnaround testing,” he said. Distinguishing between the two is also important to preserve hospital resources. COVID-19 has more rigorous standards than flu for personal protective equipment and isolation of patients within the hospital.

Having chronic lung disease isn’t necessarily a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 or the flu, or both, Dr. Solomon said. “It’s a risk factor for having severe disease.” Again, he noted that flu vaccines are still necessary in these patients, as well as patients of advanced age and underlying medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

In managing children, it’s important to keep in mind that they communicate differently about their illnesses than adults, said Dr. Kaplan. “They may not have the words to tell you the same kind of thing that the adult tells you.” That’s where family members can help to flesh out the history. “They may present with an initially much milder form, if you will, where they’re not as critical up front, but then that small proportion of them comes back with the multi-inflammatory syndrome and then they are profoundly ill.”

Younger people make up a larger share of COVID-19 patients now, compared with the initial wave that hit the Northeast in the spring, Dr. Kaplan said. “We don’t know if that’s because the virus is a little different or the people that are getting sick are a little bit different.”

The COVID-19 strain now emerging may be less virulent than the strain that hit in early spring, he said. “That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still profoundly critical ill people with COVID of many different age ranges, that is true, but there are a lot of people that we now see will test positive, but aren’t really as profoundly ill as when it first landed here in the United States.”

That may be somewhat welcome as flu season arrives.

The physicians interviewed have no relevant disclosures.

I wrote these poems in mid-March, when fear of COVID-19 struck and New York City locked down. Nearly a half-year later, the impact continues with uncertainty everywhere.

Before and After

Before – there were trees,

I hardly noticed them.

There were buses and newspapers.

Should I read a book or the Post?

Am I wasting time looking

out the window at crowds

milling into Central Park?

The tourists walk to Strawberry Fields,

and the bus turns to Central Park West.

I hardly noticed

because I had plans.

After – it ended, first slowly,

then abruptly. We sat together

in the shop, knitting,

only three of us

before the store shut.

After that –

In the park daffodils radiate gold

and grow in groups.

And the magnolia trees

flaunt their succulent petals.

The fragile cherry blossoms float flowers

Still – it is after

And before, there were trees

I hardly noticed.
 

War Means Nothing to Them

The birds and the trees know nothing.

They are not embarrassed.

The birds chirp, the trees flower;

War means nothing to them.

Grass grows thick and green,

welcomes the spring.

Babies too, even toddlers,

go about their infant business.

They play or coo or smile

as happy as the birds, the trees,

the grass, flush with life.

Dr. Cohen is in private practice and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical Center of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and psychiatric consultant at the Hospital for Special Surgery, also in New York.

I wrote these poems in mid-March, when fear of COVID-19 struck and New York City locked down. Nearly a half-year later, the impact continues with uncertainty everywhere.

Before and After

Before – there were trees,

I hardly noticed them.

There were buses and newspapers.

Should I read a book or the Post?

Am I wasting time looking

out the window at crowds

milling into Central Park?

The tourists walk to Strawberry Fields,

and the bus turns to Central Park West.

I hardly noticed

because I had plans.

After – it ended, first slowly,

then abruptly. We sat together

in the shop, knitting,

only three of us

before the store shut.

After that –

In the park daffodils radiate gold

and grow in groups.

And the magnolia trees

flaunt their succulent petals.

The fragile cherry blossoms float flowers

Still – it is after

And before, there were trees

I hardly noticed.
 

War Means Nothing to Them

The birds and the trees know nothing.

They are not embarrassed.

The birds chirp, the trees flower;

War means nothing to them.

Grass grows thick and green,

welcomes the spring.

Babies too, even toddlers,

go about their infant business.

They play or coo or smile

as happy as the birds, the trees,

the grass, flush with life.

Dr. Cohen is in private practice and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical Center of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and psychiatric consultant at the Hospital for Special Surgery, also in New York.

I wrote these poems in mid-March, when fear of COVID-19 struck and New York City locked down. Nearly a half-year later, the impact continues with uncertainty everywhere.

Before and After

Before – there were trees,

I hardly noticed them.

There were buses and newspapers.

Should I read a book or the Post?

Am I wasting time looking

out the window at crowds

milling into Central Park?

The tourists walk to Strawberry Fields,

and the bus turns to Central Park West.

I hardly noticed

because I had plans.

After – it ended, first slowly,

then abruptly. We sat together

in the shop, knitting,

only three of us

before the store shut.

After that –

In the park daffodils radiate gold

and grow in groups.

And the magnolia trees

flaunt their succulent petals.

The fragile cherry blossoms float flowers

Still – it is after

And before, there were trees

I hardly noticed.
 

War Means Nothing to Them

The birds and the trees know nothing.

They are not embarrassed.

The birds chirp, the trees flower;

War means nothing to them.

Grass grows thick and green,

welcomes the spring.

Babies too, even toddlers,

go about their infant business.

They play or coo or smile

as happy as the birds, the trees,

the grass, flush with life.

Dr. Cohen is in private practice and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical Center of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and psychiatric consultant at the Hospital for Special Surgery, also in New York.

Parents, teachers, children, and adolescents are facing stress and anxiety as K-12 school districts across the country debate whether to return to in-person instruction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As we approach the opening of schools, the stress and anxiety seem to be heightening.

alexsokolov/Thinkstock

According to Education Week, which is tracking the reopening plans of public schools across the United States, 21 of the 25 largest school districts are opting to implement remote learning only as their model. I would like to see all of those districts adopt that model until we understand more about this illness, and can prevent and treat it.

Yes, it’s true – I am a psychiatrist – not an infectious disease specialist. And I realize that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have taken nuanced positions on this issue. Their positions make it clear that it is within a child’s best interests – from an educational and social point of view – to attend school in person. Not only is the classroom experience important, but so is the socialization and the exercise. However, when I look at the science on children who have been exposed to the coronavirus, I worry.

For example, a study by Lael M. Yonker, MD, and associates on pediatric SARS-CoV-2 found that the children in days 0-2 of illness have far higher viral loads than adults who have been hospitalized for severe disease. “This study reveals that children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms, and immune dysregulation is implicated in severe post-infectious [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children],” Dr. Yonker and associates wrote, referring to the illness associated with COVID-19 in children. Their study was published recently in the Journal of Pediatrics (2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.037).

In my state, where positivity rates are fairly low, Gov. Andrew Cuomo admitted in an interview recently that sending children to school in New York City is a “tricky proposition.” At this point, New York City public schools are scheduled to open in mid-September using a hybrid mixture of in-person and remote learning.

And look at what happened several weeks ago in Israel, where schools reopened after the virus was beaten back. At one high school in Jerusalem, just days after the reopening, the virus spread so prolifically to students, teachers, and relatives that the schools had to be closed again. Other countries should not follow Israel’s example, Eli Weizmann, who chairs the team advising Israel’s National Security Council on the pandemic, reportedly told the New York Times. “It was a major failure.”

But I must be honest: I was worried about children returning to school before I heard about the study by Dr. Yonker and associates, Gov. Cuomo’s comments, and what happened in Israel. So far, here in the Northeast, particularly in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, we have managed to get COVID-19 under control. Perhaps, in this part of the country, opening classroom education might be feasible – with close monitoring and proper precautions.

But COVID-19 has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans – more than 176,000 as of this writing. A new model from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that COVID-19 could lead to more than 300,000 U.S. deaths by Dec. 1. Thankfully, the number of COVID-19–positive children who have died has been low. But they could still pass on the virus to adults.

To get a better understanding of COVID-19, I spoke with Sheryl L. Wulkan, MD, an internist and expert in personal protective equipment (PPE) who has consulted for numerous health care agencies about these issues. Dr. Wulkan said that, in some areas with low infection rates, school openings might be appropriate. However, she said, without proper testing and contact tracing, we are at a loss of controlling the spread.
 

What we should tell patients, family, and friends

From a psychiatric point of view, how should we advise our patients, family, and friends about sending their children back to school? Is on-site learning better than remote learning? It is. Do our children need the socialization that a school brings? Yes, they do.

Socialization and relating to peers are, indeed, important, but today’s children socialize in many ways beyond attending school – and they have peer friendships and interactions with electronic devices at their disposal.

Can remote learning cause social isolation – an isolation so profound that school is necessary not only for learning but the psyche as well? A meta-analysis of 80 studies that looked at the impact of social isolation and loneliness on adolescents and children who were previously healthy found that the young people “are probably more likely to experience high rates of depression and probably anxiety during and after enforced isolation ends. This may increase as enforced isolation continues,” wrote Maria Elizabeth Loades, PhD, and associates (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 3. S0890-8567[20]30337-3).

I am concerned about young people who experience anxiety and depression, and agree with Dr. Loades that we mental health professionals need to be ready to intervene early and provide preventive support. To do this, we should encourage parents to keep us informed about how their children are doing.

So my advice is that, in the absence of a vaccine and an effective treatment like we have for influenza – such as Tamiflu – and effective testing, such the saliva-based test developed by Yale University researchers, if I had school-aged children, I would continue to keep them home from school. Ultimately, however, parents must look at the science and make their decisions based on that. My children are adults with their own children, and only they can make informed decisions about which options are best for their families.

Interestingly, Sanjay Gupta, MD, the neurosurgeon who works as chief medical correspondent of CNN, recently discussed the thought process he and his wife used to determine whether their daughters would return to the classroom. After weighing many factors, including the viral spread in Fulton County, Ga., where they live, the Guptas decided that, at this time, the risks of allowing the girls to return to the classroom outweigh the benefits. “This was not an easy decision, but one that we believe best respects the science, decreases the risk of further spread, and follows the task force criteria,” wrote Dr. Gupta, who is affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta. “After 2 weeks, we will reassess.”

I understand that parents worry about the social and psychological costs of remote learning. And I can only imagine the difficulty of those who must balance homeschooling with working. And frankly, remote learning is not an option for all students. For those less fortunate, substantial governmental aid is important to assist these people and to keep them safe and on their feet until this pandemic is done. Also, those who were under the care of a psychiatrist should continue to receive care during the pandemic. We must be prepared to step in with interventions that can address the suffering that is inevitable, such as the use of targeted cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Public TV as an educational tool

Families with Internet access and those without it could benefit from using public television as a tool.

I would advise educators and the entertainment industry to harness the wonder of TV to develop curricula that can be used to educate children. As we know, Sesame Street proved to be an effective early childhood intervention, particularly for boys (Am Econ J: Applied Economics. 2019;11[1]:318-50). I would like to see programming that goes beyond Sesame Street. Learning from watching this kind of programming would be no substitute for engaging with teachers in real, live classrooms, however.

Children and adolescents will be changed by learning remotely. They will miss their friends, teachers, and other staff members, but their lives will not be ruined. Mental health professionals should be prepared to intervene to address depression, anxiety, and other sequelae and problematic behaviors that could result from social isolation. Schools, businesses, and the economy will again flourish after we get the virus behind us but controlling and eliminating this pandemic need to come first. Let’s keep our children home – to the extent that we can – until we move beyond this pandemic.
 

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

Parents, teachers, children, and adolescents are facing stress and anxiety as K-12 school districts across the country debate whether to return to in-person instruction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As we approach the opening of schools, the stress and anxiety seem to be heightening.

alexsokolov/Thinkstock

According to Education Week, which is tracking the reopening plans of public schools across the United States, 21 of the 25 largest school districts are opting to implement remote learning only as their model. I would like to see all of those districts adopt that model until we understand more about this illness, and can prevent and treat it.

Yes, it’s true – I am a psychiatrist – not an infectious disease specialist. And I realize that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have taken nuanced positions on this issue. Their positions make it clear that it is within a child’s best interests – from an educational and social point of view – to attend school in person. Not only is the classroom experience important, but so is the socialization and the exercise. However, when I look at the science on children who have been exposed to the coronavirus, I worry.

For example, a study by Lael M. Yonker, MD, and associates on pediatric SARS-CoV-2 found that the children in days 0-2 of illness have far higher viral loads than adults who have been hospitalized for severe disease. “This study reveals that children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms, and immune dysregulation is implicated in severe post-infectious [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children],” Dr. Yonker and associates wrote, referring to the illness associated with COVID-19 in children. Their study was published recently in the Journal of Pediatrics (2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.037).

In my state, where positivity rates are fairly low, Gov. Andrew Cuomo admitted in an interview recently that sending children to school in New York City is a “tricky proposition.” At this point, New York City public schools are scheduled to open in mid-September using a hybrid mixture of in-person and remote learning.

And look at what happened several weeks ago in Israel, where schools reopened after the virus was beaten back. At one high school in Jerusalem, just days after the reopening, the virus spread so prolifically to students, teachers, and relatives that the schools had to be closed again. Other countries should not follow Israel’s example, Eli Weizmann, who chairs the team advising Israel’s National Security Council on the pandemic, reportedly told the New York Times. “It was a major failure.”

But I must be honest: I was worried about children returning to school before I heard about the study by Dr. Yonker and associates, Gov. Cuomo’s comments, and what happened in Israel. So far, here in the Northeast, particularly in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, we have managed to get COVID-19 under control. Perhaps, in this part of the country, opening classroom education might be feasible – with close monitoring and proper precautions.

But COVID-19 has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans – more than 176,000 as of this writing. A new model from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that COVID-19 could lead to more than 300,000 U.S. deaths by Dec. 1. Thankfully, the number of COVID-19–positive children who have died has been low. But they could still pass on the virus to adults.

To get a better understanding of COVID-19, I spoke with Sheryl L. Wulkan, MD, an internist and expert in personal protective equipment (PPE) who has consulted for numerous health care agencies about these issues. Dr. Wulkan said that, in some areas with low infection rates, school openings might be appropriate. However, she said, without proper testing and contact tracing, we are at a loss of controlling the spread.
 

What we should tell patients, family, and friends

From a psychiatric point of view, how should we advise our patients, family, and friends about sending their children back to school? Is on-site learning better than remote learning? It is. Do our children need the socialization that a school brings? Yes, they do.

Socialization and relating to peers are, indeed, important, but today’s children socialize in many ways beyond attending school – and they have peer friendships and interactions with electronic devices at their disposal.

Can remote learning cause social isolation – an isolation so profound that school is necessary not only for learning but the psyche as well? A meta-analysis of 80 studies that looked at the impact of social isolation and loneliness on adolescents and children who were previously healthy found that the young people “are probably more likely to experience high rates of depression and probably anxiety during and after enforced isolation ends. This may increase as enforced isolation continues,” wrote Maria Elizabeth Loades, PhD, and associates (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 3. S0890-8567[20]30337-3).

I am concerned about young people who experience anxiety and depression, and agree with Dr. Loades that we mental health professionals need to be ready to intervene early and provide preventive support. To do this, we should encourage parents to keep us informed about how their children are doing.

So my advice is that, in the absence of a vaccine and an effective treatment like we have for influenza – such as Tamiflu – and effective testing, such the saliva-based test developed by Yale University researchers, if I had school-aged children, I would continue to keep them home from school. Ultimately, however, parents must look at the science and make their decisions based on that. My children are adults with their own children, and only they can make informed decisions about which options are best for their families.

Interestingly, Sanjay Gupta, MD, the neurosurgeon who works as chief medical correspondent of CNN, recently discussed the thought process he and his wife used to determine whether their daughters would return to the classroom. After weighing many factors, including the viral spread in Fulton County, Ga., where they live, the Guptas decided that, at this time, the risks of allowing the girls to return to the classroom outweigh the benefits. “This was not an easy decision, but one that we believe best respects the science, decreases the risk of further spread, and follows the task force criteria,” wrote Dr. Gupta, who is affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta. “After 2 weeks, we will reassess.”

I understand that parents worry about the social and psychological costs of remote learning. And I can only imagine the difficulty of those who must balance homeschooling with working. And frankly, remote learning is not an option for all students. For those less fortunate, substantial governmental aid is important to assist these people and to keep them safe and on their feet until this pandemic is done. Also, those who were under the care of a psychiatrist should continue to receive care during the pandemic. We must be prepared to step in with interventions that can address the suffering that is inevitable, such as the use of targeted cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Public TV as an educational tool

Families with Internet access and those without it could benefit from using public television as a tool.

I would advise educators and the entertainment industry to harness the wonder of TV to develop curricula that can be used to educate children. As we know, Sesame Street proved to be an effective early childhood intervention, particularly for boys (Am Econ J: Applied Economics. 2019;11[1]:318-50). I would like to see programming that goes beyond Sesame Street. Learning from watching this kind of programming would be no substitute for engaging with teachers in real, live classrooms, however.

Children and adolescents will be changed by learning remotely. They will miss their friends, teachers, and other staff members, but their lives will not be ruined. Mental health professionals should be prepared to intervene to address depression, anxiety, and other sequelae and problematic behaviors that could result from social isolation. Schools, businesses, and the economy will again flourish after we get the virus behind us but controlling and eliminating this pandemic need to come first. Let’s keep our children home – to the extent that we can – until we move beyond this pandemic.
 

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

Parents, teachers, children, and adolescents are facing stress and anxiety as K-12 school districts across the country debate whether to return to in-person instruction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As we approach the opening of schools, the stress and anxiety seem to be heightening.

alexsokolov/Thinkstock

According to Education Week, which is tracking the reopening plans of public schools across the United States, 21 of the 25 largest school districts are opting to implement remote learning only as their model. I would like to see all of those districts adopt that model until we understand more about this illness, and can prevent and treat it.

Yes, it’s true – I am a psychiatrist – not an infectious disease specialist. And I realize that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have taken nuanced positions on this issue. Their positions make it clear that it is within a child’s best interests – from an educational and social point of view – to attend school in person. Not only is the classroom experience important, but so is the socialization and the exercise. However, when I look at the science on children who have been exposed to the coronavirus, I worry.

For example, a study by Lael M. Yonker, MD, and associates on pediatric SARS-CoV-2 found that the children in days 0-2 of illness have far higher viral loads than adults who have been hospitalized for severe disease. “This study reveals that children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms, and immune dysregulation is implicated in severe post-infectious [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children],” Dr. Yonker and associates wrote, referring to the illness associated with COVID-19 in children. Their study was published recently in the Journal of Pediatrics (2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.037).

In my state, where positivity rates are fairly low, Gov. Andrew Cuomo admitted in an interview recently that sending children to school in New York City is a “tricky proposition.” At this point, New York City public schools are scheduled to open in mid-September using a hybrid mixture of in-person and remote learning.

And look at what happened several weeks ago in Israel, where schools reopened after the virus was beaten back. At one high school in Jerusalem, just days after the reopening, the virus spread so prolifically to students, teachers, and relatives that the schools had to be closed again. Other countries should not follow Israel’s example, Eli Weizmann, who chairs the team advising Israel’s National Security Council on the pandemic, reportedly told the New York Times. “It was a major failure.”

But I must be honest: I was worried about children returning to school before I heard about the study by Dr. Yonker and associates, Gov. Cuomo’s comments, and what happened in Israel. So far, here in the Northeast, particularly in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, we have managed to get COVID-19 under control. Perhaps, in this part of the country, opening classroom education might be feasible – with close monitoring and proper precautions.

But COVID-19 has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans – more than 176,000 as of this writing. A new model from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that COVID-19 could lead to more than 300,000 U.S. deaths by Dec. 1. Thankfully, the number of COVID-19–positive children who have died has been low. But they could still pass on the virus to adults.

To get a better understanding of COVID-19, I spoke with Sheryl L. Wulkan, MD, an internist and expert in personal protective equipment (PPE) who has consulted for numerous health care agencies about these issues. Dr. Wulkan said that, in some areas with low infection rates, school openings might be appropriate. However, she said, without proper testing and contact tracing, we are at a loss of controlling the spread.
 

What we should tell patients, family, and friends

From a psychiatric point of view, how should we advise our patients, family, and friends about sending their children back to school? Is on-site learning better than remote learning? It is. Do our children need the socialization that a school brings? Yes, they do.

Socialization and relating to peers are, indeed, important, but today’s children socialize in many ways beyond attending school – and they have peer friendships and interactions with electronic devices at their disposal.

Can remote learning cause social isolation – an isolation so profound that school is necessary not only for learning but the psyche as well? A meta-analysis of 80 studies that looked at the impact of social isolation and loneliness on adolescents and children who were previously healthy found that the young people “are probably more likely to experience high rates of depression and probably anxiety during and after enforced isolation ends. This may increase as enforced isolation continues,” wrote Maria Elizabeth Loades, PhD, and associates (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 3. S0890-8567[20]30337-3).

I am concerned about young people who experience anxiety and depression, and agree with Dr. Loades that we mental health professionals need to be ready to intervene early and provide preventive support. To do this, we should encourage parents to keep us informed about how their children are doing.

So my advice is that, in the absence of a vaccine and an effective treatment like we have for influenza – such as Tamiflu – and effective testing, such the saliva-based test developed by Yale University researchers, if I had school-aged children, I would continue to keep them home from school. Ultimately, however, parents must look at the science and make their decisions based on that. My children are adults with their own children, and only they can make informed decisions about which options are best for their families.

Interestingly, Sanjay Gupta, MD, the neurosurgeon who works as chief medical correspondent of CNN, recently discussed the thought process he and his wife used to determine whether their daughters would return to the classroom. After weighing many factors, including the viral spread in Fulton County, Ga., where they live, the Guptas decided that, at this time, the risks of allowing the girls to return to the classroom outweigh the benefits. “This was not an easy decision, but one that we believe best respects the science, decreases the risk of further spread, and follows the task force criteria,” wrote Dr. Gupta, who is affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta. “After 2 weeks, we will reassess.”

I understand that parents worry about the social and psychological costs of remote learning. And I can only imagine the difficulty of those who must balance homeschooling with working. And frankly, remote learning is not an option for all students. For those less fortunate, substantial governmental aid is important to assist these people and to keep them safe and on their feet until this pandemic is done. Also, those who were under the care of a psychiatrist should continue to receive care during the pandemic. We must be prepared to step in with interventions that can address the suffering that is inevitable, such as the use of targeted cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Public TV as an educational tool

Families with Internet access and those without it could benefit from using public television as a tool.

I would advise educators and the entertainment industry to harness the wonder of TV to develop curricula that can be used to educate children. As we know, Sesame Street proved to be an effective early childhood intervention, particularly for boys (Am Econ J: Applied Economics. 2019;11[1]:318-50). I would like to see programming that goes beyond Sesame Street. Learning from watching this kind of programming would be no substitute for engaging with teachers in real, live classrooms, however.

Children and adolescents will be changed by learning remotely. They will miss their friends, teachers, and other staff members, but their lives will not be ruined. Mental health professionals should be prepared to intervene to address depression, anxiety, and other sequelae and problematic behaviors that could result from social isolation. Schools, businesses, and the economy will again flourish after we get the virus behind us but controlling and eliminating this pandemic need to come first. Let’s keep our children home – to the extent that we can – until we move beyond this pandemic.
 

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

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.

ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.

The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.

Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.

“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”

ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.

Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.

If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19. 

If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said.  Phase three would start at the end of 2021.

Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.

ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.

The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.

Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.

“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”

ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.

Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.

If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19. 

If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said.  Phase three would start at the end of 2021.

Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.

ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.

The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.

Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.

“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”

ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.

Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.

If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19. 

If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said.  Phase three would start at the end of 2021.

Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.

There have been sporadic accounts on social media sites of people who say they’ve gotten COVID-19 twice. But scientists have been skeptical about that possibility, saying there’s no evidence it happens.

The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.

On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.

The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.

Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.

“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.

“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
 

Past experience guides present

Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.

This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.

It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.

“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.

There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.

Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
 

Good news

That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.

That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.

But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.

“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.

“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.

It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.

Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.

Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.

“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”

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

Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.

There have been sporadic accounts on social media sites of people who say they’ve gotten COVID-19 twice. But scientists have been skeptical about that possibility, saying there’s no evidence it happens.

The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.

On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.

The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.

Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.

“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.

“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
 

Past experience guides present

Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.

This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.

It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.

“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.

There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.

Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
 

Good news

That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.

That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.

But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.

“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.

“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.

It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.

Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.

Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.

“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”

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

Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.

There have been sporadic accounts on social media sites of people who say they’ve gotten COVID-19 twice. But scientists have been skeptical about that possibility, saying there’s no evidence it happens.

The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.

On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.

The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.

Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.

“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.

“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
 

Past experience guides present

Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.

This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.

It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.

“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.

There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.

Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
 

Good news

That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.

That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.

But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.

“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.

“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.

It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.

Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.

Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.

“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”

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

The persistence of long-term symptoms in some individuals with COVID-19 illness has opened up a new line of research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and other chronic postviral illnesses.

Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.

Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.

At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.

“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
 

A hint from the SARS outbreak

This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.

“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
 

Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms

Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.

Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.

Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.

While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.

If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
 

Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?

Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.

Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.

Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.

“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”

Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS. 

She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.

None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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

The persistence of long-term symptoms in some individuals with COVID-19 illness has opened up a new line of research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and other chronic postviral illnesses.

Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.

Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.

At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.

“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
 

A hint from the SARS outbreak

This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.

“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
 

Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms

Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.

Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.

Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.

While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.

If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
 

Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?

Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.

Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.

Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.

“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”

Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS. 

She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.

None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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

The persistence of long-term symptoms in some individuals with COVID-19 illness has opened up a new line of research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and other chronic postviral illnesses.

Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.

Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.

At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.

“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
 

A hint from the SARS outbreak

This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.

“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
 

Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms

Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.

Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.

Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.

While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.

If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
 

Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?

Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.

Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.

Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.

“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”

Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS. 

She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.

None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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