Clinical Psychiatry News

On the evening of March 24, I got the email. When the bolded letters “We ask for your help” flashed across my screen, I knew exactly what was being asked of me: to graduate early and join the fight against COVID-19.

It would be a lie to say that my immediate reaction was to volunteer.

For the 120 fourth-year medical students in my class at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the arrival of that email was always more a question of when than if. Similar moves had already been made in Italy as well as the United Kingdom, where the surge in patients with COVID-19 has devastated hospitals and left healthcare workers dead or drained. The New York hospitals where I’ve trained, places I have grown to love over the past 4 years, are now experiencing similar horrors. Residents and attending doctors – mentors and teachers – are burned out and exhausted. They need help.

Like most medical students, I chose to pursue medicine out of a desire to help. On both my medical school and residency applications, I spoke about my resolve to bear witness to and provide support to those suffering. Yet, being recruited to the front lines of a global pandemic felt deeply unsettling. Is this how I want to finally enter the world of medicine? The scope of what is actually being asked of me was immense.

Given the onslaught of bad news coming in on every device I had cozied up to during my social distancing, how could I want to do this? I’ve seen the death toll climb in Italy, with dozens of doctors dead. I’ve seen the photos of faces marred by masks worn for 12-16 hours at a time. I’ve been repeatedly reminded that we are just behind Italy. Things are certainly going to get worse.

It sounds selfish and petty, but I feel like COVID-19 has already robbed me of so much. Yet that was my first thought when I received the email. The end of fourth year in medical school is supposed to be a joyous, celebratory time. We have worked years for this moment. So many of us have fought burnout to reach this time, a brief moment of rest between being a medical student and becoming a full-fledged physician.

I matched into residency just 4 days before being asked to join the front lines of the pandemic. I found out my match results without the usual fanfare, sitting on a bench in Madison Square Park, FaceTiming my dad and safely social-distanced from my mom. They both cried tears of joy. Like so many people around the world right now, I couldn’t even embrace my parents. Would they want me to volunteer?

I reached out to my classmates. I thought that some of them would certainly share my worries. I thought they also had to be carrying this uncomfortable kind of grief, a heavy and acidic feeling of dreams collapsing into a moral duty. I received a unanimous reply: “We are needed. It’s our time to step up.” No matter how many “what ifs” I voiced, they wouldn’t crack or waver. Still, even if they never admitted it to me, I wondered whether they privately shared some of my concerns and fears.

Everyone knows information is shared instantly in our Twitter-centric world, but I was still shocked and unprepared for how quickly I was at the center of a major news story. Within an hour of that email, I was contacted by an old acquaintance from elementary school, now a journalist. He had found me through Facebook and asked, “Will you be one of the NYU students graduating early? Would love to get a comment.” Another friend texted me a photo of the leaked email, quipping, “Are you going to save us from the pandemic, Dr. Gabe?!” “It’s not a small decision!” I snapped back.

I went through something like the seven stages of grief in rapid succession. I found that with each excuse I made why I shouldn’t volunteer, I somehow became increasingly more anxious. To my surprise, when I decided I would join 50 of my peers at NYU, graduate early, and volunteer, my mind settled. The more I thought about it, the more I was overtaken by the selfless beauty of the profession I’m entering. This is what it means to be a doctor. I recalled a key part of the Hippocratic Oath: “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

I am going to fulfill my special obligations.

The fear is still there. I’m scared of COVID. I’m scared to infect others. I’m scared of winding up paralyzed and intubated. But I have also realized that all we have is each other. Healthcare workers supporting healthcare workers. New Yorkers supporting New Yorkers. Citizens of the world supporting citizens of the world. This is my time to be there for others, unwaveringly.

Logistical details continue to roll in, although they feel trivial in relation to the decision I have already made. The paperwork tells me that I will be onboarded to NYU’s internal medicine residency program. I will be compensated and protected under a similar contract to what current NYU residents sign. I have been promised that I will remain insured until I start my official residency program in July. My student loans won’t begin accruing interest until my normally planned graduation date. I am told that I will have personal protective equipment in line with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations.

Questions still linger. Is it safe for me and my newly minted physician peers to continue living with our spouses, children, and friends? How long will I need to quarantine after my contract ends? Will there be a virtual graduation ceremony for my parents and loved ones to enjoy? In these challenging times, each day gives me a little more clarity about what exactly I am signing up for, but there are still so many uncertainties.

Am I naive to say that I do feel prepared? Or at least as prepared as anyone can be. With respect to my training, I have completed the requirements to graduate, which is why I am being permitted to graduate early in the first place. Our faculty points to our professionalism as the most promising indicator of our preparedness. They are heartened that we have embraced this truest test: our duty to others.

There is an eerie calm to New York City that contradicts what is shown on the news. With stores closed and streets quiet, it almost feels like Christmas morning here. Yet, inside the hospital, a fire rages. All the metaphors being used right now speak about violence, devastation, and immeasurable human suffering. “A war is being fought.” Or so I have heard. I guess I am about to find out.

Gabriel Redel-Traub is a fourth-year medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He will be starting residency in internal medicine at Columbia Presbyterian this summer. He is the former editor-in-chief of Dartmouth College’s Mouth Magazine, an editor of NYU’s LitMed Database, and has published most recently in the Hasting’s Center Magazine. Gabriel Redel-Traub has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On the evening of March 24, I got the email. When the bolded letters “We ask for your help” flashed across my screen, I knew exactly what was being asked of me: to graduate early and join the fight against COVID-19.

It would be a lie to say that my immediate reaction was to volunteer.

For the 120 fourth-year medical students in my class at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the arrival of that email was always more a question of when than if. Similar moves had already been made in Italy as well as the United Kingdom, where the surge in patients with COVID-19 has devastated hospitals and left healthcare workers dead or drained. The New York hospitals where I’ve trained, places I have grown to love over the past 4 years, are now experiencing similar horrors. Residents and attending doctors – mentors and teachers – are burned out and exhausted. They need help.

Like most medical students, I chose to pursue medicine out of a desire to help. On both my medical school and residency applications, I spoke about my resolve to bear witness to and provide support to those suffering. Yet, being recruited to the front lines of a global pandemic felt deeply unsettling. Is this how I want to finally enter the world of medicine? The scope of what is actually being asked of me was immense.

Given the onslaught of bad news coming in on every device I had cozied up to during my social distancing, how could I want to do this? I’ve seen the death toll climb in Italy, with dozens of doctors dead. I’ve seen the photos of faces marred by masks worn for 12-16 hours at a time. I’ve been repeatedly reminded that we are just behind Italy. Things are certainly going to get worse.

It sounds selfish and petty, but I feel like COVID-19 has already robbed me of so much. Yet that was my first thought when I received the email. The end of fourth year in medical school is supposed to be a joyous, celebratory time. We have worked years for this moment. So many of us have fought burnout to reach this time, a brief moment of rest between being a medical student and becoming a full-fledged physician.

I matched into residency just 4 days before being asked to join the front lines of the pandemic. I found out my match results without the usual fanfare, sitting on a bench in Madison Square Park, FaceTiming my dad and safely social-distanced from my mom. They both cried tears of joy. Like so many people around the world right now, I couldn’t even embrace my parents. Would they want me to volunteer?

I reached out to my classmates. I thought that some of them would certainly share my worries. I thought they also had to be carrying this uncomfortable kind of grief, a heavy and acidic feeling of dreams collapsing into a moral duty. I received a unanimous reply: “We are needed. It’s our time to step up.” No matter how many “what ifs” I voiced, they wouldn’t crack or waver. Still, even if they never admitted it to me, I wondered whether they privately shared some of my concerns and fears.

Everyone knows information is shared instantly in our Twitter-centric world, but I was still shocked and unprepared for how quickly I was at the center of a major news story. Within an hour of that email, I was contacted by an old acquaintance from elementary school, now a journalist. He had found me through Facebook and asked, “Will you be one of the NYU students graduating early? Would love to get a comment.” Another friend texted me a photo of the leaked email, quipping, “Are you going to save us from the pandemic, Dr. Gabe?!” “It’s not a small decision!” I snapped back.

I went through something like the seven stages of grief in rapid succession. I found that with each excuse I made why I shouldn’t volunteer, I somehow became increasingly more anxious. To my surprise, when I decided I would join 50 of my peers at NYU, graduate early, and volunteer, my mind settled. The more I thought about it, the more I was overtaken by the selfless beauty of the profession I’m entering. This is what it means to be a doctor. I recalled a key part of the Hippocratic Oath: “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

I am going to fulfill my special obligations.

The fear is still there. I’m scared of COVID. I’m scared to infect others. I’m scared of winding up paralyzed and intubated. But I have also realized that all we have is each other. Healthcare workers supporting healthcare workers. New Yorkers supporting New Yorkers. Citizens of the world supporting citizens of the world. This is my time to be there for others, unwaveringly.

Logistical details continue to roll in, although they feel trivial in relation to the decision I have already made. The paperwork tells me that I will be onboarded to NYU’s internal medicine residency program. I will be compensated and protected under a similar contract to what current NYU residents sign. I have been promised that I will remain insured until I start my official residency program in July. My student loans won’t begin accruing interest until my normally planned graduation date. I am told that I will have personal protective equipment in line with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations.

Questions still linger. Is it safe for me and my newly minted physician peers to continue living with our spouses, children, and friends? How long will I need to quarantine after my contract ends? Will there be a virtual graduation ceremony for my parents and loved ones to enjoy? In these challenging times, each day gives me a little more clarity about what exactly I am signing up for, but there are still so many uncertainties.

Am I naive to say that I do feel prepared? Or at least as prepared as anyone can be. With respect to my training, I have completed the requirements to graduate, which is why I am being permitted to graduate early in the first place. Our faculty points to our professionalism as the most promising indicator of our preparedness. They are heartened that we have embraced this truest test: our duty to others.

There is an eerie calm to New York City that contradicts what is shown on the news. With stores closed and streets quiet, it almost feels like Christmas morning here. Yet, inside the hospital, a fire rages. All the metaphors being used right now speak about violence, devastation, and immeasurable human suffering. “A war is being fought.” Or so I have heard. I guess I am about to find out.

Gabriel Redel-Traub is a fourth-year medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He will be starting residency in internal medicine at Columbia Presbyterian this summer. He is the former editor-in-chief of Dartmouth College’s Mouth Magazine, an editor of NYU’s LitMed Database, and has published most recently in the Hasting’s Center Magazine. Gabriel Redel-Traub has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On the evening of March 24, I got the email. When the bolded letters “We ask for your help” flashed across my screen, I knew exactly what was being asked of me: to graduate early and join the fight against COVID-19.

It would be a lie to say that my immediate reaction was to volunteer.

For the 120 fourth-year medical students in my class at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the arrival of that email was always more a question of when than if. Similar moves had already been made in Italy as well as the United Kingdom, where the surge in patients with COVID-19 has devastated hospitals and left healthcare workers dead or drained. The New York hospitals where I’ve trained, places I have grown to love over the past 4 years, are now experiencing similar horrors. Residents and attending doctors – mentors and teachers – are burned out and exhausted. They need help.

Like most medical students, I chose to pursue medicine out of a desire to help. On both my medical school and residency applications, I spoke about my resolve to bear witness to and provide support to those suffering. Yet, being recruited to the front lines of a global pandemic felt deeply unsettling. Is this how I want to finally enter the world of medicine? The scope of what is actually being asked of me was immense.

Given the onslaught of bad news coming in on every device I had cozied up to during my social distancing, how could I want to do this? I’ve seen the death toll climb in Italy, with dozens of doctors dead. I’ve seen the photos of faces marred by masks worn for 12-16 hours at a time. I’ve been repeatedly reminded that we are just behind Italy. Things are certainly going to get worse.

It sounds selfish and petty, but I feel like COVID-19 has already robbed me of so much. Yet that was my first thought when I received the email. The end of fourth year in medical school is supposed to be a joyous, celebratory time. We have worked years for this moment. So many of us have fought burnout to reach this time, a brief moment of rest between being a medical student and becoming a full-fledged physician.

I matched into residency just 4 days before being asked to join the front lines of the pandemic. I found out my match results without the usual fanfare, sitting on a bench in Madison Square Park, FaceTiming my dad and safely social-distanced from my mom. They both cried tears of joy. Like so many people around the world right now, I couldn’t even embrace my parents. Would they want me to volunteer?

I reached out to my classmates. I thought that some of them would certainly share my worries. I thought they also had to be carrying this uncomfortable kind of grief, a heavy and acidic feeling of dreams collapsing into a moral duty. I received a unanimous reply: “We are needed. It’s our time to step up.” No matter how many “what ifs” I voiced, they wouldn’t crack or waver. Still, even if they never admitted it to me, I wondered whether they privately shared some of my concerns and fears.

Everyone knows information is shared instantly in our Twitter-centric world, but I was still shocked and unprepared for how quickly I was at the center of a major news story. Within an hour of that email, I was contacted by an old acquaintance from elementary school, now a journalist. He had found me through Facebook and asked, “Will you be one of the NYU students graduating early? Would love to get a comment.” Another friend texted me a photo of the leaked email, quipping, “Are you going to save us from the pandemic, Dr. Gabe?!” “It’s not a small decision!” I snapped back.

I went through something like the seven stages of grief in rapid succession. I found that with each excuse I made why I shouldn’t volunteer, I somehow became increasingly more anxious. To my surprise, when I decided I would join 50 of my peers at NYU, graduate early, and volunteer, my mind settled. The more I thought about it, the more I was overtaken by the selfless beauty of the profession I’m entering. This is what it means to be a doctor. I recalled a key part of the Hippocratic Oath: “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

I am going to fulfill my special obligations.

The fear is still there. I’m scared of COVID. I’m scared to infect others. I’m scared of winding up paralyzed and intubated. But I have also realized that all we have is each other. Healthcare workers supporting healthcare workers. New Yorkers supporting New Yorkers. Citizens of the world supporting citizens of the world. This is my time to be there for others, unwaveringly.

Logistical details continue to roll in, although they feel trivial in relation to the decision I have already made. The paperwork tells me that I will be onboarded to NYU’s internal medicine residency program. I will be compensated and protected under a similar contract to what current NYU residents sign. I have been promised that I will remain insured until I start my official residency program in July. My student loans won’t begin accruing interest until my normally planned graduation date. I am told that I will have personal protective equipment in line with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations.

Questions still linger. Is it safe for me and my newly minted physician peers to continue living with our spouses, children, and friends? How long will I need to quarantine after my contract ends? Will there be a virtual graduation ceremony for my parents and loved ones to enjoy? In these challenging times, each day gives me a little more clarity about what exactly I am signing up for, but there are still so many uncertainties.

Am I naive to say that I do feel prepared? Or at least as prepared as anyone can be. With respect to my training, I have completed the requirements to graduate, which is why I am being permitted to graduate early in the first place. Our faculty points to our professionalism as the most promising indicator of our preparedness. They are heartened that we have embraced this truest test: our duty to others.

There is an eerie calm to New York City that contradicts what is shown on the news. With stores closed and streets quiet, it almost feels like Christmas morning here. Yet, inside the hospital, a fire rages. All the metaphors being used right now speak about violence, devastation, and immeasurable human suffering. “A war is being fought.” Or so I have heard. I guess I am about to find out.

Gabriel Redel-Traub is a fourth-year medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He will be starting residency in internal medicine at Columbia Presbyterian this summer. He is the former editor-in-chief of Dartmouth College’s Mouth Magazine, an editor of NYU’s LitMed Database, and has published most recently in the Hasting’s Center Magazine. Gabriel Redel-Traub has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologists are offering guidance regarding how COVID-19 may affects patients with neurologic disorders, often based on scientific principles and limited evidence from the current pandemic. Neurologic disorders are among the “underlying medical conditions that may increase the risk of serious COVID-19 for individuals of any age,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Potentially relevant drug interactions, how immunosuppressive medications may influence the risk of COVID-19, and neurologic diseases that may be associated with greater risk are among the questions that experts and groups have addressed.

According to the CDC, neurologic conditions that may heighten the risk of severe COVID-19 include “disorders of the brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerve, and muscle such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy (seizure disorders), stroke, intellectual disability, moderate to severe developmental delay, muscular dystrophy, or spinal cord injury.” Many patients, however, may not have substantially increased risks, neurologists suggest.

“Patients with conditions that do not affect their swallowing or breathing muscles and in whom the immune system is working normally are not considered to be at increased risk from COVID-19,” according to March 26 guidance from the Association of British Neurologists (ABN). “Milder or moderate forms of many of the commoner neurological disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, are not currently considered to confer increased risk, so long as the breathing and swallowing muscles are functioning well.”

Neurologists should tailor treatment decisions to individual patients, according to the ABN. “Although some neurological conditions or treatments increase the risk of complicated COVID-19, most patients in these groups will overcome the infection,” the association noted.
 

Interactions with potential COVID-19 treatments

Standard drugs in neurology may interact with potential COVID-19 treatments. For example, “preliminary experience suggests that there is a possible benefit from hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment in COVID-19 infection,” but either of those drugs “may lead to a deterioration in myasthenia gravis,” the ABN notes. “Doctors will have to balance the risks from myasthenia and COVID-19 on a case-by-case basis.” The Liverpool Drug Interactions Group has published tables that describe interactions between potential COVID-19 treatments and anticonvulsants, analgesics, immunosuppressants, and other medication classes.

Many muscle diseases and neuromuscular junction diseases may entail higher risks of complicated COVID-19, the ABN suggested. For patients on immunotherapy, the medication may be a more important consideration for COVID-19 than the underlying disease. Other comorbidities such as hypertension, renal impairment, neutropenia, lymphopenia, liver disease, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and lung disease may be important factors, according to the association.
 

Seizures may not worsen

After the CDC added epilepsy to its list of conditions that entail higher risk of severe COVID-19, M. Scott Perry, MD, medical director of neurology at Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth, Tex., commented on Twitter that “most healthy people with controlled epilepsy [are] probably at no more risk than others.”

“Those treated with steroids or other immunosuppressive drugs are likely higher risk,” Dr. Perry said. “Likewise, patients with other medical comorbidities such as muscle weakness, swallowing or breathing problems, and other complex cases of epilepsy are likely higher risk. Regardless: be responsible, avoid crowds, wash your hands, avoid sick contacts.”

Doctors in Italy, based on small numbers of cases, have found that seizures are not worse in patients with epilepsy and COVID-19, said Dr. Perry. A few children, including several patients with Dravet syndrome, “had uncomplicated illness and seizures were no worse,” he said. “That is reassuring.”

“Until now, there is no evidence of a direct effect of COVID-19 on seizures or epilepsy,” according to the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). “However, patients may experience worsening of seizures due to systemic illnesses, drug interactions, decreased access to antiseizure medications, and increased stress.”

“In younger children, the fever that accompanies COVID-19 may exacerbate seizures, as might any febrile illness,” according to an American Epilepsy Society (AES) resource for epilepsy clinicians. “The main known elevated risk factors related to COVID-19 are age, respiratory disease, and other chronic medical conditions not related to epilepsy. As for all, people with epilepsy should adhere to the CDC recommendations for reducing risk of infection.” Neurologists should review with patients the importance of treatment adherence, update plans for managing breakthrough seizures, and ensure necessary medications are on hand, according to the AES.

The Epilepsy Foundation created a page with information about COVID-19 for patients with epilepsy and recorded a discussion with epilepsy specialists. DEE-P (Developmental Epileptic Encephalopathy–Project) Connections recorded a webinar about protecting medically complex or immune-suppressed children with epilepsy from COVID-19.

MS DMTs and the coronavirus

The National Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society has provided guidance on the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. “There are numerous recommendations circulating that attempt to provide clarity and guidance, however, differences among the recommendations have created confusion,” the society says. “DMT decision making varies significantly from country to country, ranging from highly provider-directed to a collaborative decision-making model. ... DMT decisions should be individualized and made collaboratively between the person with MS and his/her healthcare provider.”

Patients with MS and their physicians should weigh risks and benefits before starting cell-depleting DMTs such as alemtuzumab, cladribine, ocrelizumab, or rituximab, according the National MS Society. They also should consider the risks and benefits of DMTs that carry warnings of a potentially severe increase in disability after stopping therapy, such as fingolimod and natalizumab. “We endorse the global advice provided by the MS International Federation (MSIF) – but emphasize that DMT decision making must be individualized and based upon multiple factors,” the National MS Society said.

Neurologists currently lack evidence about how COVID-19 affects patients with MS, according to the MSIF, which based its DMT guidance on advice from MS neurologists and research experts from member organizations. Many DMTs suppress or modify the immune system, and “some MS medications might increase the likelihood of developing complications from a COVID-19 infection but this risk needs to be balanced with the risks of stopping treatment,” according to the federation.

Patients currently taking DMTs should continue treatment, and those who develop symptoms of COVID-19 or test positive for the infection should discuss their DMT with a health care professional familiar with their care, the MSIF recommends. Decisions about starting a DMT should take into account a patient’s disease course, disease activity, and regional COVID-19 risks, according to the federation. For patients due to start DMT, treatments that do not reduce lymphocytes, such as interferons, glatiramer acetate, or natalizumab, should be considered.

Fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, and siponimod “may reduce the ability of the immune system to respond to an infection,” and “people should carefully consider the risks and benefits of initiating these treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic,” according to the federation. “People with MS who are currently taking alemtuzumab, cladribine, ocrelizumab, rituximab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide or siponimod and are living in a community with a COVID-19 outbreak should isolate as much as possible to reduce their risk of infection.”

Extended isolation during the COVID-19 outbreak may be warranted for patients with MS who have recently undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell treatment, which entails intensive chemotherapy, the guidance says. In addition, postponement of this procedure should be considered.

Child neurology, migraine, movement disorders, and stroke

The Child Neurology Foundation (CNF) and Child Neurology Society (CNS) published a joint statement about COVID-19. “Most children who contract COVID-19 appear to exhibit only mild symptoms,” said Scott Pomeroy, MD, president of CNF’s board of directors and chair of the department of neurology at Boston Children’s Hospital, in the statement. “However, if your child is taking a medication such as steroids that can lower their immune system response, there could be an increased risk for more significant symptoms. In addition, children with lung disease, such as asthma, may also be at higher risk. Therefore, it is important to practice preventative precautions. We hope that this information will help to reduce some of the fears that families in our community may be experiencing.”

The American Migraine Foundation shared COVID-19 considerations for patients with migraine from Mia Minen, MD, associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone in New York. Patients with migraine who are otherwise in good health are not expected to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Minen. Best practices include having an adequate supply of medicine, considering alternatives to in-person doctor visits, and being “mindful of routine and diet to reduce migraine triggers,” the foundation suggests. In addition, patients should try to limit stress and seek out “alternative methods of social interaction.”

“The relationship between COVID-19 and Parkinson’s disease or other movement disorders remains unknown,” the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society said. “In general, we recommend that our movement disorder patients do not assume they are at extreme risks, which for the time being are uncertain. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend following the standard measures strictly to avoid exposures to the virus.”

The American Heart Association (AHA) cautions that older patients with coronary heart disease or hypertension “may be more likely than others to be infected by the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and to develop more severe symptoms.” In addition, people with a history of stroke “may face a higher risk of complications,” according to the AHA. “As a result, people who have heart disease or another underlying condition should stay home to limit their risk of contracting the virus.”

Several groups emphasized the importance of telemedicine as an option for patients with neurologic conditions during the pandemic. The American Headache Society has hosted discussions on conducting neurologic exams via telemedicine. The American Academy of Neurology also conducted a webinar on telemedicine and COVID-19 and created a page with COVID-19 resources. The journal Neurology is publishing invited commentaries about neurologic aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[email protected]

Neurologists are offering guidance regarding how COVID-19 may affects patients with neurologic disorders, often based on scientific principles and limited evidence from the current pandemic. Neurologic disorders are among the “underlying medical conditions that may increase the risk of serious COVID-19 for individuals of any age,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Potentially relevant drug interactions, how immunosuppressive medications may influence the risk of COVID-19, and neurologic diseases that may be associated with greater risk are among the questions that experts and groups have addressed.

According to the CDC, neurologic conditions that may heighten the risk of severe COVID-19 include “disorders of the brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerve, and muscle such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy (seizure disorders), stroke, intellectual disability, moderate to severe developmental delay, muscular dystrophy, or spinal cord injury.” Many patients, however, may not have substantially increased risks, neurologists suggest.

“Patients with conditions that do not affect their swallowing or breathing muscles and in whom the immune system is working normally are not considered to be at increased risk from COVID-19,” according to March 26 guidance from the Association of British Neurologists (ABN). “Milder or moderate forms of many of the commoner neurological disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, are not currently considered to confer increased risk, so long as the breathing and swallowing muscles are functioning well.”

Neurologists should tailor treatment decisions to individual patients, according to the ABN. “Although some neurological conditions or treatments increase the risk of complicated COVID-19, most patients in these groups will overcome the infection,” the association noted.
 

Interactions with potential COVID-19 treatments

Standard drugs in neurology may interact with potential COVID-19 treatments. For example, “preliminary experience suggests that there is a possible benefit from hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment in COVID-19 infection,” but either of those drugs “may lead to a deterioration in myasthenia gravis,” the ABN notes. “Doctors will have to balance the risks from myasthenia and COVID-19 on a case-by-case basis.” The Liverpool Drug Interactions Group has published tables that describe interactions between potential COVID-19 treatments and anticonvulsants, analgesics, immunosuppressants, and other medication classes.

Many muscle diseases and neuromuscular junction diseases may entail higher risks of complicated COVID-19, the ABN suggested. For patients on immunotherapy, the medication may be a more important consideration for COVID-19 than the underlying disease. Other comorbidities such as hypertension, renal impairment, neutropenia, lymphopenia, liver disease, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and lung disease may be important factors, according to the association.
 

Seizures may not worsen

After the CDC added epilepsy to its list of conditions that entail higher risk of severe COVID-19, M. Scott Perry, MD, medical director of neurology at Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth, Tex., commented on Twitter that “most healthy people with controlled epilepsy [are] probably at no more risk than others.”

“Those treated with steroids or other immunosuppressive drugs are likely higher risk,” Dr. Perry said. “Likewise, patients with other medical comorbidities such as muscle weakness, swallowing or breathing problems, and other complex cases of epilepsy are likely higher risk. Regardless: be responsible, avoid crowds, wash your hands, avoid sick contacts.”

Doctors in Italy, based on small numbers of cases, have found that seizures are not worse in patients with epilepsy and COVID-19, said Dr. Perry. A few children, including several patients with Dravet syndrome, “had uncomplicated illness and seizures were no worse,” he said. “That is reassuring.”

“Until now, there is no evidence of a direct effect of COVID-19 on seizures or epilepsy,” according to the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). “However, patients may experience worsening of seizures due to systemic illnesses, drug interactions, decreased access to antiseizure medications, and increased stress.”

“In younger children, the fever that accompanies COVID-19 may exacerbate seizures, as might any febrile illness,” according to an American Epilepsy Society (AES) resource for epilepsy clinicians. “The main known elevated risk factors related to COVID-19 are age, respiratory disease, and other chronic medical conditions not related to epilepsy. As for all, people with epilepsy should adhere to the CDC recommendations for reducing risk of infection.” Neurologists should review with patients the importance of treatment adherence, update plans for managing breakthrough seizures, and ensure necessary medications are on hand, according to the AES.

The Epilepsy Foundation created a page with information about COVID-19 for patients with epilepsy and recorded a discussion with epilepsy specialists. DEE-P (Developmental Epileptic Encephalopathy–Project) Connections recorded a webinar about protecting medically complex or immune-suppressed children with epilepsy from COVID-19.

MS DMTs and the coronavirus

The National Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society has provided guidance on the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. “There are numerous recommendations circulating that attempt to provide clarity and guidance, however, differences among the recommendations have created confusion,” the society says. “DMT decision making varies significantly from country to country, ranging from highly provider-directed to a collaborative decision-making model. ... DMT decisions should be individualized and made collaboratively between the person with MS and his/her healthcare provider.”

Patients with MS and their physicians should weigh risks and benefits before starting cell-depleting DMTs such as alemtuzumab, cladribine, ocrelizumab, or rituximab, according the National MS Society. They also should consider the risks and benefits of DMTs that carry warnings of a potentially severe increase in disability after stopping therapy, such as fingolimod and natalizumab. “We endorse the global advice provided by the MS International Federation (MSIF) – but emphasize that DMT decision making must be individualized and based upon multiple factors,” the National MS Society said.

Neurologists currently lack evidence about how COVID-19 affects patients with MS, according to the MSIF, which based its DMT guidance on advice from MS neurologists and research experts from member organizations. Many DMTs suppress or modify the immune system, and “some MS medications might increase the likelihood of developing complications from a COVID-19 infection but this risk needs to be balanced with the risks of stopping treatment,” according to the federation.

Patients currently taking DMTs should continue treatment, and those who develop symptoms of COVID-19 or test positive for the infection should discuss their DMT with a health care professional familiar with their care, the MSIF recommends. Decisions about starting a DMT should take into account a patient’s disease course, disease activity, and regional COVID-19 risks, according to the federation. For patients due to start DMT, treatments that do not reduce lymphocytes, such as interferons, glatiramer acetate, or natalizumab, should be considered.

Fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, and siponimod “may reduce the ability of the immune system to respond to an infection,” and “people should carefully consider the risks and benefits of initiating these treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic,” according to the federation. “People with MS who are currently taking alemtuzumab, cladribine, ocrelizumab, rituximab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide or siponimod and are living in a community with a COVID-19 outbreak should isolate as much as possible to reduce their risk of infection.”

Extended isolation during the COVID-19 outbreak may be warranted for patients with MS who have recently undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell treatment, which entails intensive chemotherapy, the guidance says. In addition, postponement of this procedure should be considered.

Child neurology, migraine, movement disorders, and stroke

The Child Neurology Foundation (CNF) and Child Neurology Society (CNS) published a joint statement about COVID-19. “Most children who contract COVID-19 appear to exhibit only mild symptoms,” said Scott Pomeroy, MD, president of CNF’s board of directors and chair of the department of neurology at Boston Children’s Hospital, in the statement. “However, if your child is taking a medication such as steroids that can lower their immune system response, there could be an increased risk for more significant symptoms. In addition, children with lung disease, such as asthma, may also be at higher risk. Therefore, it is important to practice preventative precautions. We hope that this information will help to reduce some of the fears that families in our community may be experiencing.”

The American Migraine Foundation shared COVID-19 considerations for patients with migraine from Mia Minen, MD, associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone in New York. Patients with migraine who are otherwise in good health are not expected to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Minen. Best practices include having an adequate supply of medicine, considering alternatives to in-person doctor visits, and being “mindful of routine and diet to reduce migraine triggers,” the foundation suggests. In addition, patients should try to limit stress and seek out “alternative methods of social interaction.”

“The relationship between COVID-19 and Parkinson’s disease or other movement disorders remains unknown,” the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society said. “In general, we recommend that our movement disorder patients do not assume they are at extreme risks, which for the time being are uncertain. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend following the standard measures strictly to avoid exposures to the virus.”

The American Heart Association (AHA) cautions that older patients with coronary heart disease or hypertension “may be more likely than others to be infected by the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and to develop more severe symptoms.” In addition, people with a history of stroke “may face a higher risk of complications,” according to the AHA. “As a result, people who have heart disease or another underlying condition should stay home to limit their risk of contracting the virus.”

Several groups emphasized the importance of telemedicine as an option for patients with neurologic conditions during the pandemic. The American Headache Society has hosted discussions on conducting neurologic exams via telemedicine. The American Academy of Neurology also conducted a webinar on telemedicine and COVID-19 and created a page with COVID-19 resources. The journal Neurology is publishing invited commentaries about neurologic aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[email protected]

Neurologists are offering guidance regarding how COVID-19 may affects patients with neurologic disorders, often based on scientific principles and limited evidence from the current pandemic. Neurologic disorders are among the “underlying medical conditions that may increase the risk of serious COVID-19 for individuals of any age,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Potentially relevant drug interactions, how immunosuppressive medications may influence the risk of COVID-19, and neurologic diseases that may be associated with greater risk are among the questions that experts and groups have addressed.

According to the CDC, neurologic conditions that may heighten the risk of severe COVID-19 include “disorders of the brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerve, and muscle such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy (seizure disorders), stroke, intellectual disability, moderate to severe developmental delay, muscular dystrophy, or spinal cord injury.” Many patients, however, may not have substantially increased risks, neurologists suggest.

“Patients with conditions that do not affect their swallowing or breathing muscles and in whom the immune system is working normally are not considered to be at increased risk from COVID-19,” according to March 26 guidance from the Association of British Neurologists (ABN). “Milder or moderate forms of many of the commoner neurological disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, are not currently considered to confer increased risk, so long as the breathing and swallowing muscles are functioning well.”

Neurologists should tailor treatment decisions to individual patients, according to the ABN. “Although some neurological conditions or treatments increase the risk of complicated COVID-19, most patients in these groups will overcome the infection,” the association noted.
 

Interactions with potential COVID-19 treatments

Standard drugs in neurology may interact with potential COVID-19 treatments. For example, “preliminary experience suggests that there is a possible benefit from hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment in COVID-19 infection,” but either of those drugs “may lead to a deterioration in myasthenia gravis,” the ABN notes. “Doctors will have to balance the risks from myasthenia and COVID-19 on a case-by-case basis.” The Liverpool Drug Interactions Group has published tables that describe interactions between potential COVID-19 treatments and anticonvulsants, analgesics, immunosuppressants, and other medication classes.

Many muscle diseases and neuromuscular junction diseases may entail higher risks of complicated COVID-19, the ABN suggested. For patients on immunotherapy, the medication may be a more important consideration for COVID-19 than the underlying disease. Other comorbidities such as hypertension, renal impairment, neutropenia, lymphopenia, liver disease, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and lung disease may be important factors, according to the association.
 

Seizures may not worsen

After the CDC added epilepsy to its list of conditions that entail higher risk of severe COVID-19, M. Scott Perry, MD, medical director of neurology at Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth, Tex., commented on Twitter that “most healthy people with controlled epilepsy [are] probably at no more risk than others.”

“Those treated with steroids or other immunosuppressive drugs are likely higher risk,” Dr. Perry said. “Likewise, patients with other medical comorbidities such as muscle weakness, swallowing or breathing problems, and other complex cases of epilepsy are likely higher risk. Regardless: be responsible, avoid crowds, wash your hands, avoid sick contacts.”

Doctors in Italy, based on small numbers of cases, have found that seizures are not worse in patients with epilepsy and COVID-19, said Dr. Perry. A few children, including several patients with Dravet syndrome, “had uncomplicated illness and seizures were no worse,” he said. “That is reassuring.”

“Until now, there is no evidence of a direct effect of COVID-19 on seizures or epilepsy,” according to the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). “However, patients may experience worsening of seizures due to systemic illnesses, drug interactions, decreased access to antiseizure medications, and increased stress.”

“In younger children, the fever that accompanies COVID-19 may exacerbate seizures, as might any febrile illness,” according to an American Epilepsy Society (AES) resource for epilepsy clinicians. “The main known elevated risk factors related to COVID-19 are age, respiratory disease, and other chronic medical conditions not related to epilepsy. As for all, people with epilepsy should adhere to the CDC recommendations for reducing risk of infection.” Neurologists should review with patients the importance of treatment adherence, update plans for managing breakthrough seizures, and ensure necessary medications are on hand, according to the AES.

The Epilepsy Foundation created a page with information about COVID-19 for patients with epilepsy and recorded a discussion with epilepsy specialists. DEE-P (Developmental Epileptic Encephalopathy–Project) Connections recorded a webinar about protecting medically complex or immune-suppressed children with epilepsy from COVID-19.

MS DMTs and the coronavirus

The National Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society has provided guidance on the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. “There are numerous recommendations circulating that attempt to provide clarity and guidance, however, differences among the recommendations have created confusion,” the society says. “DMT decision making varies significantly from country to country, ranging from highly provider-directed to a collaborative decision-making model. ... DMT decisions should be individualized and made collaboratively between the person with MS and his/her healthcare provider.”

Patients with MS and their physicians should weigh risks and benefits before starting cell-depleting DMTs such as alemtuzumab, cladribine, ocrelizumab, or rituximab, according the National MS Society. They also should consider the risks and benefits of DMTs that carry warnings of a potentially severe increase in disability after stopping therapy, such as fingolimod and natalizumab. “We endorse the global advice provided by the MS International Federation (MSIF) – but emphasize that DMT decision making must be individualized and based upon multiple factors,” the National MS Society said.

Neurologists currently lack evidence about how COVID-19 affects patients with MS, according to the MSIF, which based its DMT guidance on advice from MS neurologists and research experts from member organizations. Many DMTs suppress or modify the immune system, and “some MS medications might increase the likelihood of developing complications from a COVID-19 infection but this risk needs to be balanced with the risks of stopping treatment,” according to the federation.

Patients currently taking DMTs should continue treatment, and those who develop symptoms of COVID-19 or test positive for the infection should discuss their DMT with a health care professional familiar with their care, the MSIF recommends. Decisions about starting a DMT should take into account a patient’s disease course, disease activity, and regional COVID-19 risks, according to the federation. For patients due to start DMT, treatments that do not reduce lymphocytes, such as interferons, glatiramer acetate, or natalizumab, should be considered.

Fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, and siponimod “may reduce the ability of the immune system to respond to an infection,” and “people should carefully consider the risks and benefits of initiating these treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic,” according to the federation. “People with MS who are currently taking alemtuzumab, cladribine, ocrelizumab, rituximab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide or siponimod and are living in a community with a COVID-19 outbreak should isolate as much as possible to reduce their risk of infection.”

Extended isolation during the COVID-19 outbreak may be warranted for patients with MS who have recently undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell treatment, which entails intensive chemotherapy, the guidance says. In addition, postponement of this procedure should be considered.

Child neurology, migraine, movement disorders, and stroke

The Child Neurology Foundation (CNF) and Child Neurology Society (CNS) published a joint statement about COVID-19. “Most children who contract COVID-19 appear to exhibit only mild symptoms,” said Scott Pomeroy, MD, president of CNF’s board of directors and chair of the department of neurology at Boston Children’s Hospital, in the statement. “However, if your child is taking a medication such as steroids that can lower their immune system response, there could be an increased risk for more significant symptoms. In addition, children with lung disease, such as asthma, may also be at higher risk. Therefore, it is important to practice preventative precautions. We hope that this information will help to reduce some of the fears that families in our community may be experiencing.”

The American Migraine Foundation shared COVID-19 considerations for patients with migraine from Mia Minen, MD, associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone in New York. Patients with migraine who are otherwise in good health are not expected to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Minen. Best practices include having an adequate supply of medicine, considering alternatives to in-person doctor visits, and being “mindful of routine and diet to reduce migraine triggers,” the foundation suggests. In addition, patients should try to limit stress and seek out “alternative methods of social interaction.”

“The relationship between COVID-19 and Parkinson’s disease or other movement disorders remains unknown,” the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society said. “In general, we recommend that our movement disorder patients do not assume they are at extreme risks, which for the time being are uncertain. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend following the standard measures strictly to avoid exposures to the virus.”

The American Heart Association (AHA) cautions that older patients with coronary heart disease or hypertension “may be more likely than others to be infected by the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and to develop more severe symptoms.” In addition, people with a history of stroke “may face a higher risk of complications,” according to the AHA. “As a result, people who have heart disease or another underlying condition should stay home to limit their risk of contracting the virus.”

Several groups emphasized the importance of telemedicine as an option for patients with neurologic conditions during the pandemic. The American Headache Society has hosted discussions on conducting neurologic exams via telemedicine. The American Academy of Neurology also conducted a webinar on telemedicine and COVID-19 and created a page with COVID-19 resources. The journal Neurology is publishing invited commentaries about neurologic aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[email protected]

In the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, in Newtown, Conn., after 20 children and seven adults were murdered, American gun sales surged on fears of new restrictions.

Bytmonas/ThinkStock

In the ensuing months, 20 more children and 40 more adults died from unintentional shootings believed to be tied to that surge in gun purchases.¹ More recently, American gun sales surged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with heated legal battles brewing over whether gun sales are essential.^2,3 The results of this surge in sales are yet to fully manifest, but I would like to discuss several risks.

The public health risks of firearm access are well established: Nearly every measure of harm, from suicide to negligent injury and death to homicide to shootings of police, increase along with access to firearms.⁴ That firearms in the home are associated with greater likelihoods of suicide, negligent injury and death, and intrafamilial homicide has been recognized for decades as has the substantially heightened risk in the immediate period after a firearm is brought into the home.^5,6 Defensive gun use is rare despite this being the nominal reason for firearm ownership among many.⁷ Even prior to recent events, there had been concerns of increased unsafe carrying and handling of firearms.⁸ It seems reasonable to expect such trends not to be diminished by recent events.

Added to this are several stressors, which one can reasonably expect to be associated with increased risks for unsafe use. There are new, broad social stressors from fear and uncertainty about COVID-19. Unemployment rates have skyrocketed, clinical care has been disrupted, and basic necessities have become scant. Children are home from school, unable to play with friends and unable to access mental health services as easily as before; risks of negligent and suicidal injuries and death may ensue. Couples and families are isolated in homes together for longer periods and with fewer avenues for relief; previously peaceful homes may see conflicts increase and homes with abuse have now trapped victims with their assailants. Social isolation is difficult for any person and may be even more traumatic for people with underlying vulnerabilities, including mental illness. The risks of being isolated in a home – struggling with worsening symptoms – with ready access to a firearm are self-evident.

For mental health professionals in our current situation, I would like to offer several practical ways we can intervene with patients and clients who might own firearms.

• Consider reassessing for firearm access. Patients may be in new homes, or there may be new firearms in their homes. Use gentle assumptions and focus on home access over personal access to elicit the most true, positive answers, for example: “I understand there have been a lot of changes recently; how many guns are in the home now?”
• Reinforce safer storage practices. Simple measures, such as storing ammunition separately and using trigger locks or safes, can make a substantial difference in injury risks.
• Do not forget aging clients; suicide risk increases with age, and there may be substantial risks among the geriatric population for suicide and murder-suicide. If using telepsychiatry, realize that the abuser might be in the home or within earshot of any clinical encounter, and this might put the client at heightened risk, during and after telesessions.
• Highlight access to local and national resources, including the Disaster Distress Hotline (800-985-5990) and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (800-273-TALK). Promote both numbers, and note that some people may be more comfortable reaching out for help for “distress” than for “suicide.”

References

1. Levine PB and McKnight R. Science. 2017 Dec 8;358(6368):1324-8.

2. Levin D. “Coronavirus and firearms: Are gun shops essential businesses?” The New York Times. 2020 Mar 25.

3. Robertson L. “Neither hurricanes nor 9/11 caused as big a surge in gun sales as coronavirus.” Miami Herald. 2020 Mar 25.

4. Moyer MW. Scientific American. 2017 Oct;317(4):54-63.

5. Kellermann AL et al. J Trauma. 1998 Aug;45(2):263-7.

6. Wintemute GJ et al. New Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 18;341(21):1583-9.

7. Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use: An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data. Washington: Violence Policy Center; 2019 Jul.

8. Towers S et al. bioRxiv. 2019 Apr 18;613687.
 

Dr. Rozel is the medical director of resolve Crisis Services at UPMC Western Psychiatric Hospital and president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry. He also is associate professor of psychiatry and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. He has no conflicts of interest but has worked for a gun dealer to teach sales staff how to recognize people in crisis (rather than sell a gun).

In the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, in Newtown, Conn., after 20 children and seven adults were murdered, American gun sales surged on fears of new restrictions.

Bytmonas/ThinkStock

In the ensuing months, 20 more children and 40 more adults died from unintentional shootings believed to be tied to that surge in gun purchases.¹ More recently, American gun sales surged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with heated legal battles brewing over whether gun sales are essential.^2,3 The results of this surge in sales are yet to fully manifest, but I would like to discuss several risks.

The public health risks of firearm access are well established: Nearly every measure of harm, from suicide to negligent injury and death to homicide to shootings of police, increase along with access to firearms.⁴ That firearms in the home are associated with greater likelihoods of suicide, negligent injury and death, and intrafamilial homicide has been recognized for decades as has the substantially heightened risk in the immediate period after a firearm is brought into the home.^5,6 Defensive gun use is rare despite this being the nominal reason for firearm ownership among many.⁷ Even prior to recent events, there had been concerns of increased unsafe carrying and handling of firearms.⁸ It seems reasonable to expect such trends not to be diminished by recent events.

Added to this are several stressors, which one can reasonably expect to be associated with increased risks for unsafe use. There are new, broad social stressors from fear and uncertainty about COVID-19. Unemployment rates have skyrocketed, clinical care has been disrupted, and basic necessities have become scant. Children are home from school, unable to play with friends and unable to access mental health services as easily as before; risks of negligent and suicidal injuries and death may ensue. Couples and families are isolated in homes together for longer periods and with fewer avenues for relief; previously peaceful homes may see conflicts increase and homes with abuse have now trapped victims with their assailants. Social isolation is difficult for any person and may be even more traumatic for people with underlying vulnerabilities, including mental illness. The risks of being isolated in a home – struggling with worsening symptoms – with ready access to a firearm are self-evident.

For mental health professionals in our current situation, I would like to offer several practical ways we can intervene with patients and clients who might own firearms.

• Consider reassessing for firearm access. Patients may be in new homes, or there may be new firearms in their homes. Use gentle assumptions and focus on home access over personal access to elicit the most true, positive answers, for example: “I understand there have been a lot of changes recently; how many guns are in the home now?”
• Reinforce safer storage practices. Simple measures, such as storing ammunition separately and using trigger locks or safes, can make a substantial difference in injury risks.
• Do not forget aging clients; suicide risk increases with age, and there may be substantial risks among the geriatric population for suicide and murder-suicide. If using telepsychiatry, realize that the abuser might be in the home or within earshot of any clinical encounter, and this might put the client at heightened risk, during and after telesessions.
• Highlight access to local and national resources, including the Disaster Distress Hotline (800-985-5990) and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (800-273-TALK). Promote both numbers, and note that some people may be more comfortable reaching out for help for “distress” than for “suicide.”

References

1. Levine PB and McKnight R. Science. 2017 Dec 8;358(6368):1324-8.

2. Levin D. “Coronavirus and firearms: Are gun shops essential businesses?” The New York Times. 2020 Mar 25.

3. Robertson L. “Neither hurricanes nor 9/11 caused as big a surge in gun sales as coronavirus.” Miami Herald. 2020 Mar 25.

4. Moyer MW. Scientific American. 2017 Oct;317(4):54-63.

5. Kellermann AL et al. J Trauma. 1998 Aug;45(2):263-7.

6. Wintemute GJ et al. New Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 18;341(21):1583-9.

7. Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use: An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data. Washington: Violence Policy Center; 2019 Jul.

8. Towers S et al. bioRxiv. 2019 Apr 18;613687.
 

Dr. Rozel is the medical director of resolve Crisis Services at UPMC Western Psychiatric Hospital and president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry. He also is associate professor of psychiatry and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. He has no conflicts of interest but has worked for a gun dealer to teach sales staff how to recognize people in crisis (rather than sell a gun).

In the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, in Newtown, Conn., after 20 children and seven adults were murdered, American gun sales surged on fears of new restrictions.

Bytmonas/ThinkStock

In the ensuing months, 20 more children and 40 more adults died from unintentional shootings believed to be tied to that surge in gun purchases.¹ More recently, American gun sales surged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with heated legal battles brewing over whether gun sales are essential.^2,3 The results of this surge in sales are yet to fully manifest, but I would like to discuss several risks.

The public health risks of firearm access are well established: Nearly every measure of harm, from suicide to negligent injury and death to homicide to shootings of police, increase along with access to firearms.⁴ That firearms in the home are associated with greater likelihoods of suicide, negligent injury and death, and intrafamilial homicide has been recognized for decades as has the substantially heightened risk in the immediate period after a firearm is brought into the home.^5,6 Defensive gun use is rare despite this being the nominal reason for firearm ownership among many.⁷ Even prior to recent events, there had been concerns of increased unsafe carrying and handling of firearms.⁸ It seems reasonable to expect such trends not to be diminished by recent events.

Added to this are several stressors, which one can reasonably expect to be associated with increased risks for unsafe use. There are new, broad social stressors from fear and uncertainty about COVID-19. Unemployment rates have skyrocketed, clinical care has been disrupted, and basic necessities have become scant. Children are home from school, unable to play with friends and unable to access mental health services as easily as before; risks of negligent and suicidal injuries and death may ensue. Couples and families are isolated in homes together for longer periods and with fewer avenues for relief; previously peaceful homes may see conflicts increase and homes with abuse have now trapped victims with their assailants. Social isolation is difficult for any person and may be even more traumatic for people with underlying vulnerabilities, including mental illness. The risks of being isolated in a home – struggling with worsening symptoms – with ready access to a firearm are self-evident.

For mental health professionals in our current situation, I would like to offer several practical ways we can intervene with patients and clients who might own firearms.

• Consider reassessing for firearm access. Patients may be in new homes, or there may be new firearms in their homes. Use gentle assumptions and focus on home access over personal access to elicit the most true, positive answers, for example: “I understand there have been a lot of changes recently; how many guns are in the home now?”
• Reinforce safer storage practices. Simple measures, such as storing ammunition separately and using trigger locks or safes, can make a substantial difference in injury risks.
• Do not forget aging clients; suicide risk increases with age, and there may be substantial risks among the geriatric population for suicide and murder-suicide. If using telepsychiatry, realize that the abuser might be in the home or within earshot of any clinical encounter, and this might put the client at heightened risk, during and after telesessions.
• Highlight access to local and national resources, including the Disaster Distress Hotline (800-985-5990) and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (800-273-TALK). Promote both numbers, and note that some people may be more comfortable reaching out for help for “distress” than for “suicide.”

References

1. Levine PB and McKnight R. Science. 2017 Dec 8;358(6368):1324-8.

2. Levin D. “Coronavirus and firearms: Are gun shops essential businesses?” The New York Times. 2020 Mar 25.

3. Robertson L. “Neither hurricanes nor 9/11 caused as big a surge in gun sales as coronavirus.” Miami Herald. 2020 Mar 25.

4. Moyer MW. Scientific American. 2017 Oct;317(4):54-63.

5. Kellermann AL et al. J Trauma. 1998 Aug;45(2):263-7.

6. Wintemute GJ et al. New Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 18;341(21):1583-9.

7. Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use: An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data. Washington: Violence Policy Center; 2019 Jul.

8. Towers S et al. bioRxiv. 2019 Apr 18;613687.
 

Dr. Rozel is the medical director of resolve Crisis Services at UPMC Western Psychiatric Hospital and president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry. He also is associate professor of psychiatry and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. He has no conflicts of interest but has worked for a gun dealer to teach sales staff how to recognize people in crisis (rather than sell a gun).

No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.

However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.

The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.

Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.  

John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.

The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements

First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.

Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.

Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.

Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.

Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection

The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).

Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.

Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.

However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.

Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.

Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.

Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.

The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.

NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.

“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.

The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.

However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.

The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.

Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.  

John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.

The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements

First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.

Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.

Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.

Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.

Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection

The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).

Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.

Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.

However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.

Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.

Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.

Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.

The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.

NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.

“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.

The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.

However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.

The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.

Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.  

John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.

The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements

First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.

Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.

Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.

Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.

Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection

The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).

Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.

Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.

However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.

Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.

Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.

Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.

The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.

NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.

“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.

The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Greater prevalence of underlying health conditions such as diabetes and chronic lung disease was seen among nearly 7,200 Americans hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of the 122,653 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported to the CDC as of March 28, the COVID-19 Response Team had access to data on the presence or absence of underlying health conditions and other recognized risk factors for severe outcomes from respiratory infections for 7,162 (5.8%) patients.

“Among these patients, higher percentages of patients with underlying conditions were admitted to the hospital and to an ICU than patients without reported underlying conditions. These results are consistent with findings from China and Italy,” Katherine Fleming-Dutra, MD, and associates said in the MMWR.

Individuals with underlying health conditions/risk factors made up 37.6% of all COVID-19 patients in the study but represented a majority of ICU (78%) and non-ICU (71%) hospital admissions. In contrast, 73% of COVID-19 patients who were not hospitalized had no underlying conditions, Dr. Fleming-Dutra and the CDC COVID-19 Response Team reported.

With a prevalence of 10.9%, diabetes mellitus was the most common condition reported among all COVID-19 patients, followed by chronic lung disease (9.2%) and cardiovascular disease (9.0%), the investigators said.

Another look at the data shows that 40.5% of those with underlying conditions were hospitalized, compared with 9.0% of the 4,470 COVID-19 patients without any risk factors.

“Strategies to protect all persons and especially those with underlying health conditions, including social distancing and handwashing, should be implemented by all communities and all persons to help slow the spread of COVID-19,” the response team wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fleming-Dutra K et al. MMWR. 2020 Mar 31;69 (early release):1-5.

Greater prevalence of underlying health conditions such as diabetes and chronic lung disease was seen among nearly 7,200 Americans hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of the 122,653 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported to the CDC as of March 28, the COVID-19 Response Team had access to data on the presence or absence of underlying health conditions and other recognized risk factors for severe outcomes from respiratory infections for 7,162 (5.8%) patients.

“Among these patients, higher percentages of patients with underlying conditions were admitted to the hospital and to an ICU than patients without reported underlying conditions. These results are consistent with findings from China and Italy,” Katherine Fleming-Dutra, MD, and associates said in the MMWR.

Individuals with underlying health conditions/risk factors made up 37.6% of all COVID-19 patients in the study but represented a majority of ICU (78%) and non-ICU (71%) hospital admissions. In contrast, 73% of COVID-19 patients who were not hospitalized had no underlying conditions, Dr. Fleming-Dutra and the CDC COVID-19 Response Team reported.

With a prevalence of 10.9%, diabetes mellitus was the most common condition reported among all COVID-19 patients, followed by chronic lung disease (9.2%) and cardiovascular disease (9.0%), the investigators said.

Another look at the data shows that 40.5% of those with underlying conditions were hospitalized, compared with 9.0% of the 4,470 COVID-19 patients without any risk factors.

“Strategies to protect all persons and especially those with underlying health conditions, including social distancing and handwashing, should be implemented by all communities and all persons to help slow the spread of COVID-19,” the response team wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fleming-Dutra K et al. MMWR. 2020 Mar 31;69 (early release):1-5.

Greater prevalence of underlying health conditions such as diabetes and chronic lung disease was seen among nearly 7,200 Americans hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of the 122,653 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported to the CDC as of March 28, the COVID-19 Response Team had access to data on the presence or absence of underlying health conditions and other recognized risk factors for severe outcomes from respiratory infections for 7,162 (5.8%) patients.

“Among these patients, higher percentages of patients with underlying conditions were admitted to the hospital and to an ICU than patients without reported underlying conditions. These results are consistent with findings from China and Italy,” Katherine Fleming-Dutra, MD, and associates said in the MMWR.

Individuals with underlying health conditions/risk factors made up 37.6% of all COVID-19 patients in the study but represented a majority of ICU (78%) and non-ICU (71%) hospital admissions. In contrast, 73% of COVID-19 patients who were not hospitalized had no underlying conditions, Dr. Fleming-Dutra and the CDC COVID-19 Response Team reported.

With a prevalence of 10.9%, diabetes mellitus was the most common condition reported among all COVID-19 patients, followed by chronic lung disease (9.2%) and cardiovascular disease (9.0%), the investigators said.

Another look at the data shows that 40.5% of those with underlying conditions were hospitalized, compared with 9.0% of the 4,470 COVID-19 patients without any risk factors.

“Strategies to protect all persons and especially those with underlying health conditions, including social distancing and handwashing, should be implemented by all communities and all persons to help slow the spread of COVID-19,” the response team wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fleming-Dutra K et al. MMWR. 2020 Mar 31;69 (early release):1-5.

The immune responses of specific antibodies were maintained in more than 90% of recovered SARS-CoV patients for 2 years, raising the likelihood that the similarly behaving SARS-CoV-2 might provoke the same response, according to an online communication published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The authors cited a cohort study of convalescent SARS-CoV patients (56 cases, from the Beijing hospital of the Armed Forces Police, China) that showed that specific IgG antibodies and neutralizing antibodies were highly correlated, peaking at month 4 after the onset of disease and decreasing gradually thereafter.

This and other studies suggest that the immune responses of specific antibodies were maintained in more than 90% of recovered SARS-CoV patients for 2 years, according to the authors.

However, of particular concern is the fact that only 11.8% of patients acquire specific SARS-CoV Abs in the early period after recovery at day 7, not reaching 100% until day 90, which highlights the importance of the detection of antibody titers for convalescent COVID-19 patients, according to the authors. “Otherwise, these patients with low titers of antibodies may not be efficient for the clearance of SARS-CoV-2.”

The authors also cited a recent study that showed how neutralizing antibody from a convalescent SARS patient could block the SARS-CoV-2 from entering into target cells in vitro, and suggested that previous experimental SARS-CoV vaccines and neutralizing antibodies could provide novel preventive and therapeutic options for COVID-19.

“These experiences from SARS-CoV are expected to have some implications for the treatment, management and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” the authors concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lin Q et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Mar 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2020.03.015.

The immune responses of specific antibodies were maintained in more than 90% of recovered SARS-CoV patients for 2 years, raising the likelihood that the similarly behaving SARS-CoV-2 might provoke the same response, according to an online communication published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The authors cited a cohort study of convalescent SARS-CoV patients (56 cases, from the Beijing hospital of the Armed Forces Police, China) that showed that specific IgG antibodies and neutralizing antibodies were highly correlated, peaking at month 4 after the onset of disease and decreasing gradually thereafter.

This and other studies suggest that the immune responses of specific antibodies were maintained in more than 90% of recovered SARS-CoV patients for 2 years, according to the authors.

However, of particular concern is the fact that only 11.8% of patients acquire specific SARS-CoV Abs in the early period after recovery at day 7, not reaching 100% until day 90, which highlights the importance of the detection of antibody titers for convalescent COVID-19 patients, according to the authors. “Otherwise, these patients with low titers of antibodies may not be efficient for the clearance of SARS-CoV-2.”

The authors also cited a recent study that showed how neutralizing antibody from a convalescent SARS patient could block the SARS-CoV-2 from entering into target cells in vitro, and suggested that previous experimental SARS-CoV vaccines and neutralizing antibodies could provide novel preventive and therapeutic options for COVID-19.

“These experiences from SARS-CoV are expected to have some implications for the treatment, management and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” the authors concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lin Q et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Mar 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2020.03.015.

The immune responses of specific antibodies were maintained in more than 90% of recovered SARS-CoV patients for 2 years, raising the likelihood that the similarly behaving SARS-CoV-2 might provoke the same response, according to an online communication published in the Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The authors cited a cohort study of convalescent SARS-CoV patients (56 cases, from the Beijing hospital of the Armed Forces Police, China) that showed that specific IgG antibodies and neutralizing antibodies were highly correlated, peaking at month 4 after the onset of disease and decreasing gradually thereafter.

This and other studies suggest that the immune responses of specific antibodies were maintained in more than 90% of recovered SARS-CoV patients for 2 years, according to the authors.

However, of particular concern is the fact that only 11.8% of patients acquire specific SARS-CoV Abs in the early period after recovery at day 7, not reaching 100% until day 90, which highlights the importance of the detection of antibody titers for convalescent COVID-19 patients, according to the authors. “Otherwise, these patients with low titers of antibodies may not be efficient for the clearance of SARS-CoV-2.”

The authors also cited a recent study that showed how neutralizing antibody from a convalescent SARS patient could block the SARS-CoV-2 from entering into target cells in vitro, and suggested that previous experimental SARS-CoV vaccines and neutralizing antibodies could provide novel preventive and therapeutic options for COVID-19.

“These experiences from SARS-CoV are expected to have some implications for the treatment, management and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” the authors concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lin Q et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Mar 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2020.03.015.

Screening for depression in patients with atopic dermatitis is a vital task that’s woefully neglected – and dermatologists aren’t doing any better a job of it than primary care physicians, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, declared in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Silverberg presented highlights of his recent study of depression screening rates in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual population-based survey by the National Center for Health Statistics. He and his coinvestigator analyzed 9,345 office visits for atopic dermatitis (AD) and 2,085 for psoriasis (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Oct 24. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18629.). The picture that emerged showed that there is much room for improvement.

“We found that depression screening rates were abysmally low in atopic dermatitis patients, with less than 2% patients being screened. There was very little difference in screening rates between patients on an advanced therapy, like systemic phototherapy or a biologic, compared to those who were just on topical therapy alone, meaning even the more severe patients aren’t being asked these questions. And no difference between dermatologists and primary care physicians,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

For Dr. Silverberg, known for his pioneering work documenting the marked yet often-underappreciated negative impact of AD on quality of life and mental health, these rock-bottom screening rates were particularly galling.

“There are very high rates of anxiety and depression amongst our patients with atopic dermatitis,” the dermatologist emphasized. “Mental health symptoms are an incredibly important domain in atopic dermatitis that we need to ask our patients about. We don’t ask enough.

“This to me is actually a very important symptom to measure. It’s not just a theoretical construct involved in understanding the burden of the disease, it’s something that’s actionable because most of these cases of mental health symptoms are reversible or modifiable with improved control of the atopic dermatitis,” he continued. “I use this as an indication to step up therapy. If a patient is clinically depressed and we believe that’s secondary to their chronic atopic dermatitis, this is a reason to step up therapy to something stronger.”

If the depressive symptoms don’t improve after stepping up the intensity of the dermatologic therapy, it’s probably time for the patient to see a mental health professional, Dr. Silverberg advised, adding, “I’m not telling every dermatology resident out there to become a psychiatrist.”


 

Depression and anxiety in AD: How common?

In an analysis of multiyear data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys, an annual population-based project conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Dr. Silverberg and a coinvestigator found that adults with AD were an adjusted 186% more likely than those without AD to screen positive for depressive symptoms on the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), with rates of 44.3% and 21.9%, respectively. The AD patients were also 500% more likely to screen positive for severe psychological distress, with a 25.9% rate of having a Kessler-6 index score of 13 or more, compared with 5.5% in adults without AD.

The rate of severe psychological distress was higher in adults with AD than in those with asthma, diabetes, hypertension, urticaria, or psoriasis, and was comparable with the rate in individuals with autoimmune disease (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019 Aug;123[2]:179-85).

“It’s surprising when you think that the majority of the cases of atopic dermatitis in the population are mild and yet when you look at a population-based sample such as this you see a strong signal come up. It means that, with all the dilution of mild disease, the signal is still there. It emphasizes that even patients with mild disease get these depressive symptoms and psychosocial distress,” Dr. Silverberg observed.

In a separate analysis of the same national database, this time looking at Short Form-6D health utility scores – a measure of overall quality of life encompassing key domains including vitality, physical function, mental health, fatigue – adults with AD scored markedly worse than individuals with no chronic health disorders. Health utility scores were particularly low in adults with AD and comorbid symptoms of anxiety or depression, suggesting that those affective symptoms are major drivers of the demonstrably poor quality of life in adult AD (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020 Jan;124[1]:88-9).

In the Atopic Dermatitis in America Study, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators cross-sectionally surveyed 2,893 adults using the seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) assessment instruments. Individuals with AD as determined using the modified U.K. Diagnostic Criteria had dramatically higher rates of both depression and anxiety. For example, the prevalence of a HADS-A score of 11 or more, which is considered to be case finding for clinically important anxiety, was 28.6% in adults with AD, nearly twice the 15.5% prevalence in those without the dermatologic disease. A HADS-D score of 11 or greater was present in 13.5% of subjects with AD and 9% of those without.

HADS-A and -D scores were higher in adults with moderate AD, compared with mild disease, and higher still in those with severe AD. Indeed, virtually all individuals with moderate to severe AD had symptoms of anxiety and depression, which in a large proportion had gone undiagnosed. A multivariate analysis strongly suggested that AD severity was the major driver of anxiety and depression in adults with AD (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Sep;181[3]:554-65).

An important finding was that 100% of adults with AD who had scores in the severe range on three validated measures of itch, frequency of symptoms, and lesion severity had borderline or abnormal scores on the HADS-A and -D.

“Of course, if you don’t ask, you’re not going to know about it,” Dr. Silverberg noted.

Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

[email protected]

Screening for depression in patients with atopic dermatitis is a vital task that’s woefully neglected – and dermatologists aren’t doing any better a job of it than primary care physicians, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, declared in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Silverberg presented highlights of his recent study of depression screening rates in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual population-based survey by the National Center for Health Statistics. He and his coinvestigator analyzed 9,345 office visits for atopic dermatitis (AD) and 2,085 for psoriasis (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Oct 24. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18629.). The picture that emerged showed that there is much room for improvement.

“We found that depression screening rates were abysmally low in atopic dermatitis patients, with less than 2% patients being screened. There was very little difference in screening rates between patients on an advanced therapy, like systemic phototherapy or a biologic, compared to those who were just on topical therapy alone, meaning even the more severe patients aren’t being asked these questions. And no difference between dermatologists and primary care physicians,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

For Dr. Silverberg, known for his pioneering work documenting the marked yet often-underappreciated negative impact of AD on quality of life and mental health, these rock-bottom screening rates were particularly galling.

“There are very high rates of anxiety and depression amongst our patients with atopic dermatitis,” the dermatologist emphasized. “Mental health symptoms are an incredibly important domain in atopic dermatitis that we need to ask our patients about. We don’t ask enough.

“This to me is actually a very important symptom to measure. It’s not just a theoretical construct involved in understanding the burden of the disease, it’s something that’s actionable because most of these cases of mental health symptoms are reversible or modifiable with improved control of the atopic dermatitis,” he continued. “I use this as an indication to step up therapy. If a patient is clinically depressed and we believe that’s secondary to their chronic atopic dermatitis, this is a reason to step up therapy to something stronger.”

If the depressive symptoms don’t improve after stepping up the intensity of the dermatologic therapy, it’s probably time for the patient to see a mental health professional, Dr. Silverberg advised, adding, “I’m not telling every dermatology resident out there to become a psychiatrist.”


 

Depression and anxiety in AD: How common?

In an analysis of multiyear data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys, an annual population-based project conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Dr. Silverberg and a coinvestigator found that adults with AD were an adjusted 186% more likely than those without AD to screen positive for depressive symptoms on the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), with rates of 44.3% and 21.9%, respectively. The AD patients were also 500% more likely to screen positive for severe psychological distress, with a 25.9% rate of having a Kessler-6 index score of 13 or more, compared with 5.5% in adults without AD.

The rate of severe psychological distress was higher in adults with AD than in those with asthma, diabetes, hypertension, urticaria, or psoriasis, and was comparable with the rate in individuals with autoimmune disease (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019 Aug;123[2]:179-85).

“It’s surprising when you think that the majority of the cases of atopic dermatitis in the population are mild and yet when you look at a population-based sample such as this you see a strong signal come up. It means that, with all the dilution of mild disease, the signal is still there. It emphasizes that even patients with mild disease get these depressive symptoms and psychosocial distress,” Dr. Silverberg observed.

In a separate analysis of the same national database, this time looking at Short Form-6D health utility scores – a measure of overall quality of life encompassing key domains including vitality, physical function, mental health, fatigue – adults with AD scored markedly worse than individuals with no chronic health disorders. Health utility scores were particularly low in adults with AD and comorbid symptoms of anxiety or depression, suggesting that those affective symptoms are major drivers of the demonstrably poor quality of life in adult AD (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020 Jan;124[1]:88-9).

In the Atopic Dermatitis in America Study, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators cross-sectionally surveyed 2,893 adults using the seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) assessment instruments. Individuals with AD as determined using the modified U.K. Diagnostic Criteria had dramatically higher rates of both depression and anxiety. For example, the prevalence of a HADS-A score of 11 or more, which is considered to be case finding for clinically important anxiety, was 28.6% in adults with AD, nearly twice the 15.5% prevalence in those without the dermatologic disease. A HADS-D score of 11 or greater was present in 13.5% of subjects with AD and 9% of those without.

HADS-A and -D scores were higher in adults with moderate AD, compared with mild disease, and higher still in those with severe AD. Indeed, virtually all individuals with moderate to severe AD had symptoms of anxiety and depression, which in a large proportion had gone undiagnosed. A multivariate analysis strongly suggested that AD severity was the major driver of anxiety and depression in adults with AD (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Sep;181[3]:554-65).

An important finding was that 100% of adults with AD who had scores in the severe range on three validated measures of itch, frequency of symptoms, and lesion severity had borderline or abnormal scores on the HADS-A and -D.

“Of course, if you don’t ask, you’re not going to know about it,” Dr. Silverberg noted.

Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

[email protected]

Screening for depression in patients with atopic dermatitis is a vital task that’s woefully neglected – and dermatologists aren’t doing any better a job of it than primary care physicians, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, declared in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Silverberg presented highlights of his recent study of depression screening rates in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual population-based survey by the National Center for Health Statistics. He and his coinvestigator analyzed 9,345 office visits for atopic dermatitis (AD) and 2,085 for psoriasis (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Oct 24. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18629.). The picture that emerged showed that there is much room for improvement.

“We found that depression screening rates were abysmally low in atopic dermatitis patients, with less than 2% patients being screened. There was very little difference in screening rates between patients on an advanced therapy, like systemic phototherapy or a biologic, compared to those who were just on topical therapy alone, meaning even the more severe patients aren’t being asked these questions. And no difference between dermatologists and primary care physicians,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

For Dr. Silverberg, known for his pioneering work documenting the marked yet often-underappreciated negative impact of AD on quality of life and mental health, these rock-bottom screening rates were particularly galling.

“There are very high rates of anxiety and depression amongst our patients with atopic dermatitis,” the dermatologist emphasized. “Mental health symptoms are an incredibly important domain in atopic dermatitis that we need to ask our patients about. We don’t ask enough.

“This to me is actually a very important symptom to measure. It’s not just a theoretical construct involved in understanding the burden of the disease, it’s something that’s actionable because most of these cases of mental health symptoms are reversible or modifiable with improved control of the atopic dermatitis,” he continued. “I use this as an indication to step up therapy. If a patient is clinically depressed and we believe that’s secondary to their chronic atopic dermatitis, this is a reason to step up therapy to something stronger.”

If the depressive symptoms don’t improve after stepping up the intensity of the dermatologic therapy, it’s probably time for the patient to see a mental health professional, Dr. Silverberg advised, adding, “I’m not telling every dermatology resident out there to become a psychiatrist.”


 

Depression and anxiety in AD: How common?

In an analysis of multiyear data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys, an annual population-based project conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Dr. Silverberg and a coinvestigator found that adults with AD were an adjusted 186% more likely than those without AD to screen positive for depressive symptoms on the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), with rates of 44.3% and 21.9%, respectively. The AD patients were also 500% more likely to screen positive for severe psychological distress, with a 25.9% rate of having a Kessler-6 index score of 13 or more, compared with 5.5% in adults without AD.

The rate of severe psychological distress was higher in adults with AD than in those with asthma, diabetes, hypertension, urticaria, or psoriasis, and was comparable with the rate in individuals with autoimmune disease (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019 Aug;123[2]:179-85).

“It’s surprising when you think that the majority of the cases of atopic dermatitis in the population are mild and yet when you look at a population-based sample such as this you see a strong signal come up. It means that, with all the dilution of mild disease, the signal is still there. It emphasizes that even patients with mild disease get these depressive symptoms and psychosocial distress,” Dr. Silverberg observed.

In a separate analysis of the same national database, this time looking at Short Form-6D health utility scores – a measure of overall quality of life encompassing key domains including vitality, physical function, mental health, fatigue – adults with AD scored markedly worse than individuals with no chronic health disorders. Health utility scores were particularly low in adults with AD and comorbid symptoms of anxiety or depression, suggesting that those affective symptoms are major drivers of the demonstrably poor quality of life in adult AD (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020 Jan;124[1]:88-9).

In the Atopic Dermatitis in America Study, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators cross-sectionally surveyed 2,893 adults using the seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) assessment instruments. Individuals with AD as determined using the modified U.K. Diagnostic Criteria had dramatically higher rates of both depression and anxiety. For example, the prevalence of a HADS-A score of 11 or more, which is considered to be case finding for clinically important anxiety, was 28.6% in adults with AD, nearly twice the 15.5% prevalence in those without the dermatologic disease. A HADS-D score of 11 or greater was present in 13.5% of subjects with AD and 9% of those without.

HADS-A and -D scores were higher in adults with moderate AD, compared with mild disease, and higher still in those with severe AD. Indeed, virtually all individuals with moderate to severe AD had symptoms of anxiety and depression, which in a large proportion had gone undiagnosed. A multivariate analysis strongly suggested that AD severity was the major driver of anxiety and depression in adults with AD (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Sep;181[3]:554-65).

An important finding was that 100% of adults with AD who had scores in the severe range on three validated measures of itch, frequency of symptoms, and lesion severity had borderline or abnormal scores on the HADS-A and -D.

“Of course, if you don’t ask, you’re not going to know about it,” Dr. Silverberg noted.

Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

[email protected]

A controversial study led by Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, on the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with COVID-19 was published March 20. The latest results from the same Marseille team, which involve 80 patients, were reported on March 27.

The investigators report a significant reduction in the viral load (83% patients had negative results on quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing at day 7, and 93% had negative results on day 8). There was a “clinical improvement compared to the natural progression.” One death occurred, and three patients were transferred to intensive care units.

If the data seem encouraging, the lack of a control arm in the study leaves clinicians perplexed, however.

Benjamin Davido, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Raymond-Poincaré Hospital in Garches, Paris, spoke in an interview about the implications of these new results.
 

What do you think about the new results presented by Prof. Raoult’s team? Do they confirm the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine?

These results are complementary [to the original results] but don’t offer any new information or new statistical evidence. They are absolutely superimposable and say overall that, between 5 and 7 days [of treatment], very few patients shed the virus. But that is not the question that everyone is asking.

Even if we don’t necessarily have to conduct a randomized study, we should at least compare the treatment, either against another therapy – which could be hydroxychloroquine monotherapy, or just standard of care. It needed an authentic control arm.

To recruit 80 patients so quickly, the researchers probably took people with essentially ambulatory forms of the disease (there was a call for screening in the south of France) – therefore, by definition, less severe cases.

But to describe such a population of patients as going home and saying, “There were very few hospitalizations and it is going well,” does not in any way prove that the treatment reduces hospitalizations.
 

The argument for not having a control arm in this study was that it would be unethical. What do you think?

I agree with this argument when it comes to patients presenting with risk factors or who are starting to develop pneumonia.

But I don’t think this is the case at the beginning of the illness. Of course, you don’t want to wait to have severe disease or for the patient to be in intensive care to start treatment. In these cases, it is indeed very difficult to find a control arm.
 

In the ongoing Discovery trial, which involves more than 3,000 patients in Europe, including 800 in France, the patients have severe disease, and there are five treatment arms. Moreover, hydroxychloroquine is given without azithromycin. What do you think of this?

I think it’s a mistake. It will not answer the question of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19, especially as they’re not studying azithromycin in a situation where the compound seems necessary for the effectiveness of the treatment.

In addition, Discovery reinforces the notion of studying Kaletra [lopinavir/ritonavir, AbbVie] again, while Chinese researchers have shown that it does not work, the argument being that Kaletra was given too late (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282). Therefore, if we make the same mistakes from a methodological point of view, we will end up with negative results.
 

What should have been done in the Marseille study?

The question is: Are there more or fewer hospitalizations when we treat a homogeneous population straight away?

The answer could be very clear, as a control already exists! They are the patients that flow into our hospitals every day – ironically, these 80 patients [in the latest results, presented March 27] could be among the 80% who had a form similar to nasopharyngitis and resolved.

In this illness, we know that there are 80% spontaneous recoveries and 20% so-called severe forms. Therefore, with 80 patients, we are very underpowered. The cohort is too small for a disease in which 80% of the evolution is benign.

It would take 1,000 patients, and then, even without a control arm, we would have an answer.

On March 26, Didier Raoult’s team also announced having already treated 700 patients with hydroxychloroquine, with only one death. Therefore, if this cohort increases significantly in Marseille and we see that, on the map, there are fewer issues with patient flow and saturation in Marseille and that there are fewer patients in intensive care, you will have to wonder about the effect of hydroxychloroquine.

We will find out very quickly. If it really works, and they treat all the patients presenting at Timone Hospital, we will soon have the answer. It will be a real-life study.
 

What are the other studies on hydroxychloroquine that could give us answers?

There was a Chinese study that did not show a difference in effectiveness between hydroxychloroquine and placebo, but that was, again, conducted in only around 20 patients (J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci). 2020. doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03). This cohort is too small and tells us nothing; it cannot show anything. We must wait for the results of larger trials being conducted in China.

It surprises me that, today, we still do not have Italian data on the use of chloroquine-type drugs ... perhaps because they have a care pathway that means there is no outpatient treatment and that they arrive already with severe disease. The Italian recommendations nevertheless indicate the use of hydroxychloroquine.

I also wonder about the lack of studies of cohorts where, in retrospect, we could have followed people previously treated with hydroxychloroquine for chronic diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc.). Or we could identify all those patients on the health insurance system who had prescriptions.

That is how we discovered the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco: There was an increase in the number of prescriptions for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim) that corresponded to a population subtype (homosexual), and we realized that it was for a disease that resembled pneumocystosis. We discovered that via the drug!

If hydroxychloroquine is effective, it is enough to look at people who took it before the epidemic and see how they fared. And there, we do not need a control arm. This could give us some direction. The March 26 decree of the new Véran Law states that community pharmacies can dispense to patients with a previous prescription, so we can find these individuals.
 

Do you think that the lack of, or difficulty in setting up, studies on hydroxychloroquine in France is linked to decisions that are more political than scientific?

Perhaps the contaminated blood scandal still casts a shadow in France, and there is a great deal of anxiety over the fact that we are already in a crisis, and we do not want a second one. I can understand that.

However, just a week ago, access to this drug (and others with market approval that have been on the market for several years) was blocked in hospital central pharmacies, while we are the medical specialists with the authorization! It was unacceptable.

It was sorted out 48 hours ago: hydroxychloroquine is now available in the hospital, and to my knowledge, we no longer have a problem obtaining it.

It took time to alleviate doubts over the major health risks with this drug. [Officials] seemed almost like amateurs in their hesitation; I think they lacked foresight. We have forgotten that the treatment advocated by Prof. Didier Raoult is not chloroquine but rather hydroxychloroquine, and we know that the adverse effects are less [with hydroxychloroquine] than with chloroquine.
 

You yourself have treated patients with chloroquine, despite the risk for toxicity highlighted by some.

Initially, when we first started treating patients, we thought of chloroquine because we did not have data on hydroxychloroquine, only Chinese data with chloroquine. We therefore prescribed chloroquine several days before prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

The question of the toxicity of chloroquine was not unjustified, but I think we took far too much time to decide on the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine. Is [the latter] political? I don’t know. It was widely publicized, which amazes me for a drug that is already available.

On the other hand, everyone was talking at the same time about the toxicity of NSAIDs. ... One has the impression it was to create a diversion. I think there were double standards at play and a scapegoat was needed to gain some time and ask questions.

What is sure is that it is probably not for financial reasons, as hydroxychloroquine costs nothing. That’s to say there were probably pharmaceutical issues at stake for possible competitors of hydroxychloroquine; I do not want to get into this debate, and it doesn’t matter, as long as we have an answer.

Today, the only thing we have advanced on is the “safety” of hydroxychloroquine, the low risk to the general population. ... On the other hand, we have still not made any progress on the evidence of efficacy, compared with other treatments.

Personally, I really believe in hydroxychloroquine. It would nevertheless be a shame to think we had found the fountain of youth and realize, in 4 weeks, that we have the same number of deaths. That is the problem. I hope that we will soon have solid data so we do not waste time focusing solely on hydroxychloroquine.
 

What are the other avenues of research that grab your attention?

The Discovery trial will probably give an answer on remdesivir [GS-5734, Gilead], which is a direct antiviral and could be interesting. But there are other studies being conducted currently in China.

There is also favipiravir [T-705, Avigan, Toyama Chemical], which is an anti-influenza drug used in Japan, which could explain, in part, the control of the epidemic in that country. There are effects in vitro on coronavirus. But it is not at all studied in France at the moment. Therefore, we should not focus exclusively on hydroxychloroquine; we must keep a close eye on other molecules, in particular the “old” drugs, like this antiviral.

The study was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection, the National Research Agency, under the Investissements d’avenir program, Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur, and European funding FEDER PRIMI. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A controversial study led by Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, on the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with COVID-19 was published March 20. The latest results from the same Marseille team, which involve 80 patients, were reported on March 27.

The investigators report a significant reduction in the viral load (83% patients had negative results on quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing at day 7, and 93% had negative results on day 8). There was a “clinical improvement compared to the natural progression.” One death occurred, and three patients were transferred to intensive care units.

If the data seem encouraging, the lack of a control arm in the study leaves clinicians perplexed, however.

Benjamin Davido, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Raymond-Poincaré Hospital in Garches, Paris, spoke in an interview about the implications of these new results.
 

What do you think about the new results presented by Prof. Raoult’s team? Do they confirm the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine?

These results are complementary [to the original results] but don’t offer any new information or new statistical evidence. They are absolutely superimposable and say overall that, between 5 and 7 days [of treatment], very few patients shed the virus. But that is not the question that everyone is asking.

Even if we don’t necessarily have to conduct a randomized study, we should at least compare the treatment, either against another therapy – which could be hydroxychloroquine monotherapy, or just standard of care. It needed an authentic control arm.

To recruit 80 patients so quickly, the researchers probably took people with essentially ambulatory forms of the disease (there was a call for screening in the south of France) – therefore, by definition, less severe cases.

But to describe such a population of patients as going home and saying, “There were very few hospitalizations and it is going well,” does not in any way prove that the treatment reduces hospitalizations.
 

The argument for not having a control arm in this study was that it would be unethical. What do you think?

I agree with this argument when it comes to patients presenting with risk factors or who are starting to develop pneumonia.

But I don’t think this is the case at the beginning of the illness. Of course, you don’t want to wait to have severe disease or for the patient to be in intensive care to start treatment. In these cases, it is indeed very difficult to find a control arm.
 

In the ongoing Discovery trial, which involves more than 3,000 patients in Europe, including 800 in France, the patients have severe disease, and there are five treatment arms. Moreover, hydroxychloroquine is given without azithromycin. What do you think of this?

I think it’s a mistake. It will not answer the question of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19, especially as they’re not studying azithromycin in a situation where the compound seems necessary for the effectiveness of the treatment.

In addition, Discovery reinforces the notion of studying Kaletra [lopinavir/ritonavir, AbbVie] again, while Chinese researchers have shown that it does not work, the argument being that Kaletra was given too late (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282). Therefore, if we make the same mistakes from a methodological point of view, we will end up with negative results.
 

What should have been done in the Marseille study?

The question is: Are there more or fewer hospitalizations when we treat a homogeneous population straight away?

The answer could be very clear, as a control already exists! They are the patients that flow into our hospitals every day – ironically, these 80 patients [in the latest results, presented March 27] could be among the 80% who had a form similar to nasopharyngitis and resolved.

In this illness, we know that there are 80% spontaneous recoveries and 20% so-called severe forms. Therefore, with 80 patients, we are very underpowered. The cohort is too small for a disease in which 80% of the evolution is benign.

It would take 1,000 patients, and then, even without a control arm, we would have an answer.

On March 26, Didier Raoult’s team also announced having already treated 700 patients with hydroxychloroquine, with only one death. Therefore, if this cohort increases significantly in Marseille and we see that, on the map, there are fewer issues with patient flow and saturation in Marseille and that there are fewer patients in intensive care, you will have to wonder about the effect of hydroxychloroquine.

We will find out very quickly. If it really works, and they treat all the patients presenting at Timone Hospital, we will soon have the answer. It will be a real-life study.
 

What are the other studies on hydroxychloroquine that could give us answers?

There was a Chinese study that did not show a difference in effectiveness between hydroxychloroquine and placebo, but that was, again, conducted in only around 20 patients (J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci). 2020. doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03). This cohort is too small and tells us nothing; it cannot show anything. We must wait for the results of larger trials being conducted in China.

It surprises me that, today, we still do not have Italian data on the use of chloroquine-type drugs ... perhaps because they have a care pathway that means there is no outpatient treatment and that they arrive already with severe disease. The Italian recommendations nevertheless indicate the use of hydroxychloroquine.

I also wonder about the lack of studies of cohorts where, in retrospect, we could have followed people previously treated with hydroxychloroquine for chronic diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc.). Or we could identify all those patients on the health insurance system who had prescriptions.

That is how we discovered the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco: There was an increase in the number of prescriptions for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim) that corresponded to a population subtype (homosexual), and we realized that it was for a disease that resembled pneumocystosis. We discovered that via the drug!

If hydroxychloroquine is effective, it is enough to look at people who took it before the epidemic and see how they fared. And there, we do not need a control arm. This could give us some direction. The March 26 decree of the new Véran Law states that community pharmacies can dispense to patients with a previous prescription, so we can find these individuals.
 

Do you think that the lack of, or difficulty in setting up, studies on hydroxychloroquine in France is linked to decisions that are more political than scientific?

Perhaps the contaminated blood scandal still casts a shadow in France, and there is a great deal of anxiety over the fact that we are already in a crisis, and we do not want a second one. I can understand that.

However, just a week ago, access to this drug (and others with market approval that have been on the market for several years) was blocked in hospital central pharmacies, while we are the medical specialists with the authorization! It was unacceptable.

It was sorted out 48 hours ago: hydroxychloroquine is now available in the hospital, and to my knowledge, we no longer have a problem obtaining it.

It took time to alleviate doubts over the major health risks with this drug. [Officials] seemed almost like amateurs in their hesitation; I think they lacked foresight. We have forgotten that the treatment advocated by Prof. Didier Raoult is not chloroquine but rather hydroxychloroquine, and we know that the adverse effects are less [with hydroxychloroquine] than with chloroquine.
 

You yourself have treated patients with chloroquine, despite the risk for toxicity highlighted by some.

Initially, when we first started treating patients, we thought of chloroquine because we did not have data on hydroxychloroquine, only Chinese data with chloroquine. We therefore prescribed chloroquine several days before prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

The question of the toxicity of chloroquine was not unjustified, but I think we took far too much time to decide on the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine. Is [the latter] political? I don’t know. It was widely publicized, which amazes me for a drug that is already available.

On the other hand, everyone was talking at the same time about the toxicity of NSAIDs. ... One has the impression it was to create a diversion. I think there were double standards at play and a scapegoat was needed to gain some time and ask questions.

What is sure is that it is probably not for financial reasons, as hydroxychloroquine costs nothing. That’s to say there were probably pharmaceutical issues at stake for possible competitors of hydroxychloroquine; I do not want to get into this debate, and it doesn’t matter, as long as we have an answer.

Today, the only thing we have advanced on is the “safety” of hydroxychloroquine, the low risk to the general population. ... On the other hand, we have still not made any progress on the evidence of efficacy, compared with other treatments.

Personally, I really believe in hydroxychloroquine. It would nevertheless be a shame to think we had found the fountain of youth and realize, in 4 weeks, that we have the same number of deaths. That is the problem. I hope that we will soon have solid data so we do not waste time focusing solely on hydroxychloroquine.
 

What are the other avenues of research that grab your attention?

The Discovery trial will probably give an answer on remdesivir [GS-5734, Gilead], which is a direct antiviral and could be interesting. But there are other studies being conducted currently in China.

There is also favipiravir [T-705, Avigan, Toyama Chemical], which is an anti-influenza drug used in Japan, which could explain, in part, the control of the epidemic in that country. There are effects in vitro on coronavirus. But it is not at all studied in France at the moment. Therefore, we should not focus exclusively on hydroxychloroquine; we must keep a close eye on other molecules, in particular the “old” drugs, like this antiviral.

The study was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection, the National Research Agency, under the Investissements d’avenir program, Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur, and European funding FEDER PRIMI. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A controversial study led by Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, on the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with COVID-19 was published March 20. The latest results from the same Marseille team, which involve 80 patients, were reported on March 27.

The investigators report a significant reduction in the viral load (83% patients had negative results on quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing at day 7, and 93% had negative results on day 8). There was a “clinical improvement compared to the natural progression.” One death occurred, and three patients were transferred to intensive care units.

If the data seem encouraging, the lack of a control arm in the study leaves clinicians perplexed, however.

Benjamin Davido, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Raymond-Poincaré Hospital in Garches, Paris, spoke in an interview about the implications of these new results.
 

What do you think about the new results presented by Prof. Raoult’s team? Do they confirm the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine?

These results are complementary [to the original results] but don’t offer any new information or new statistical evidence. They are absolutely superimposable and say overall that, between 5 and 7 days [of treatment], very few patients shed the virus. But that is not the question that everyone is asking.

Even if we don’t necessarily have to conduct a randomized study, we should at least compare the treatment, either against another therapy – which could be hydroxychloroquine monotherapy, or just standard of care. It needed an authentic control arm.

To recruit 80 patients so quickly, the researchers probably took people with essentially ambulatory forms of the disease (there was a call for screening in the south of France) – therefore, by definition, less severe cases.

But to describe such a population of patients as going home and saying, “There were very few hospitalizations and it is going well,” does not in any way prove that the treatment reduces hospitalizations.
 

The argument for not having a control arm in this study was that it would be unethical. What do you think?

I agree with this argument when it comes to patients presenting with risk factors or who are starting to develop pneumonia.

But I don’t think this is the case at the beginning of the illness. Of course, you don’t want to wait to have severe disease or for the patient to be in intensive care to start treatment. In these cases, it is indeed very difficult to find a control arm.
 

In the ongoing Discovery trial, which involves more than 3,000 patients in Europe, including 800 in France, the patients have severe disease, and there are five treatment arms. Moreover, hydroxychloroquine is given without azithromycin. What do you think of this?

I think it’s a mistake. It will not answer the question of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19, especially as they’re not studying azithromycin in a situation where the compound seems necessary for the effectiveness of the treatment.

In addition, Discovery reinforces the notion of studying Kaletra [lopinavir/ritonavir, AbbVie] again, while Chinese researchers have shown that it does not work, the argument being that Kaletra was given too late (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282). Therefore, if we make the same mistakes from a methodological point of view, we will end up with negative results.
 

What should have been done in the Marseille study?

The question is: Are there more or fewer hospitalizations when we treat a homogeneous population straight away?

The answer could be very clear, as a control already exists! They are the patients that flow into our hospitals every day – ironically, these 80 patients [in the latest results, presented March 27] could be among the 80% who had a form similar to nasopharyngitis and resolved.

In this illness, we know that there are 80% spontaneous recoveries and 20% so-called severe forms. Therefore, with 80 patients, we are very underpowered. The cohort is too small for a disease in which 80% of the evolution is benign.

It would take 1,000 patients, and then, even without a control arm, we would have an answer.

On March 26, Didier Raoult’s team also announced having already treated 700 patients with hydroxychloroquine, with only one death. Therefore, if this cohort increases significantly in Marseille and we see that, on the map, there are fewer issues with patient flow and saturation in Marseille and that there are fewer patients in intensive care, you will have to wonder about the effect of hydroxychloroquine.

We will find out very quickly. If it really works, and they treat all the patients presenting at Timone Hospital, we will soon have the answer. It will be a real-life study.
 

What are the other studies on hydroxychloroquine that could give us answers?

There was a Chinese study that did not show a difference in effectiveness between hydroxychloroquine and placebo, but that was, again, conducted in only around 20 patients (J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci). 2020. doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03). This cohort is too small and tells us nothing; it cannot show anything. We must wait for the results of larger trials being conducted in China.

It surprises me that, today, we still do not have Italian data on the use of chloroquine-type drugs ... perhaps because they have a care pathway that means there is no outpatient treatment and that they arrive already with severe disease. The Italian recommendations nevertheless indicate the use of hydroxychloroquine.

I also wonder about the lack of studies of cohorts where, in retrospect, we could have followed people previously treated with hydroxychloroquine for chronic diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc.). Or we could identify all those patients on the health insurance system who had prescriptions.

That is how we discovered the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco: There was an increase in the number of prescriptions for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim) that corresponded to a population subtype (homosexual), and we realized that it was for a disease that resembled pneumocystosis. We discovered that via the drug!

If hydroxychloroquine is effective, it is enough to look at people who took it before the epidemic and see how they fared. And there, we do not need a control arm. This could give us some direction. The March 26 decree of the new Véran Law states that community pharmacies can dispense to patients with a previous prescription, so we can find these individuals.
 

Do you think that the lack of, or difficulty in setting up, studies on hydroxychloroquine in France is linked to decisions that are more political than scientific?

Perhaps the contaminated blood scandal still casts a shadow in France, and there is a great deal of anxiety over the fact that we are already in a crisis, and we do not want a second one. I can understand that.

However, just a week ago, access to this drug (and others with market approval that have been on the market for several years) was blocked in hospital central pharmacies, while we are the medical specialists with the authorization! It was unacceptable.

It was sorted out 48 hours ago: hydroxychloroquine is now available in the hospital, and to my knowledge, we no longer have a problem obtaining it.

It took time to alleviate doubts over the major health risks with this drug. [Officials] seemed almost like amateurs in their hesitation; I think they lacked foresight. We have forgotten that the treatment advocated by Prof. Didier Raoult is not chloroquine but rather hydroxychloroquine, and we know that the adverse effects are less [with hydroxychloroquine] than with chloroquine.
 

You yourself have treated patients with chloroquine, despite the risk for toxicity highlighted by some.

Initially, when we first started treating patients, we thought of chloroquine because we did not have data on hydroxychloroquine, only Chinese data with chloroquine. We therefore prescribed chloroquine several days before prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

The question of the toxicity of chloroquine was not unjustified, but I think we took far too much time to decide on the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine. Is [the latter] political? I don’t know. It was widely publicized, which amazes me for a drug that is already available.

On the other hand, everyone was talking at the same time about the toxicity of NSAIDs. ... One has the impression it was to create a diversion. I think there were double standards at play and a scapegoat was needed to gain some time and ask questions.

What is sure is that it is probably not for financial reasons, as hydroxychloroquine costs nothing. That’s to say there were probably pharmaceutical issues at stake for possible competitors of hydroxychloroquine; I do not want to get into this debate, and it doesn’t matter, as long as we have an answer.

Today, the only thing we have advanced on is the “safety” of hydroxychloroquine, the low risk to the general population. ... On the other hand, we have still not made any progress on the evidence of efficacy, compared with other treatments.

Personally, I really believe in hydroxychloroquine. It would nevertheless be a shame to think we had found the fountain of youth and realize, in 4 weeks, that we have the same number of deaths. That is the problem. I hope that we will soon have solid data so we do not waste time focusing solely on hydroxychloroquine.
 

What are the other avenues of research that grab your attention?

The Discovery trial will probably give an answer on remdesivir [GS-5734, Gilead], which is a direct antiviral and could be interesting. But there are other studies being conducted currently in China.

There is also favipiravir [T-705, Avigan, Toyama Chemical], which is an anti-influenza drug used in Japan, which could explain, in part, the control of the epidemic in that country. There are effects in vitro on coronavirus. But it is not at all studied in France at the moment. Therefore, we should not focus exclusively on hydroxychloroquine; we must keep a close eye on other molecules, in particular the “old” drugs, like this antiviral.

The study was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection, the National Research Agency, under the Investissements d’avenir program, Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur, and European funding FEDER PRIMI. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a physician WhatsApp group, a doctor posted he had fever of 101 °F and muscle ache, gently confessing that it felt like his typical “man flu” which heals with rest and scotch. Nevertheless, he worried that he had coronavirus. When the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the virus on his nasal swab came back negative, he jubilantly announced his relief.

Like Twitter, in WhatsApp emotions quickly outstrip facts. After he received a flurry of cheerful emojis, I ruined the party, advising that, despite the negative test, he assume he’s infected and quarantine for 2 weeks, with a bottle of scotch.

It’s conventional wisdom that the secret sauce to fighting the pandemic is testing for the virus. To gauge the breadth of the response against the pandemic we must know who and how many are infected. The depth of the response will be different if 25% of the population is infected than 1%. Testing is the third way, rejecting the false choice between death and economic depression. Without testing, strategy is faith based.

Our reliance on testing has clinical precedence – scarcely any decision in medicine is made without laboratory tests or imaging. Testing is as ingrained in medicine as the GPS is in driving. We use it even when we know our way home. But tests impose a question – what’ll you do differently if the test is negative?

That depends on the test’s performance and the consequences of being wrong. Though coronavirus damages the lungs with reckless abandon, it’s oddly a shy virus. In many patients, it takes 3-4 swabs to get a positive RT-PCR. The Chinese ophthalmologist, Li Wenliang, who originally sounded the alarm about coronavirus, had several negative tests. He died from the infection.

In one Chinese study, the sensitivity of RT-PCR – that’s the proportion of the infected who test positive – was around 70%. To put this in perspective, of 1,000 people infected with coronavirus, 700 will test positive but 300 will test negative.

Is this good enough?

Three hundred “false-negative” people may believe they’re not contagious because they got a clean chit and could infect others. False negatives could undo the hard work of containment.

Surely, better an imperfect test than no test. Isn’t flying with partially accurate weather information safer than no information? Here, aviation analogies aren’t helpful. Better to think of a forest fire.

Imagine only 80% of a burning forest is doused because it’s mistakenly believed that 20% of the forest isn’t burning because we can’t see it burning. It must be extinguished before it relights the whole forest, but to douse it you must know it’s burning – a Catch-22. That “20% of the forest” is a false negative – it’s burning but you think it’s not burning.

Because coronavirus isn’t planning to leave in a hurry and long-term lockdown has grave economic consequences, testing may enable precision quarantining of people, communities, and cities. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all lockdown on the whole nation, testing could tell us who can work and who should stay home. Why should Austin, if it has a low prevalence of infection, shut shop just because of New York City’s high prevalence?

Testing enables us to think globally but act locally. But it’s the asymptomatic people who drive the epidemic. To emphasize – asymptomatics are yet to have symptoms such as cough and fever. They’re feeling well and don’t know they’ve been colonized by the virus. Theoretically, if we test en masse we can find asymptomatics. If only those who test positive are quarantined, the rest can have some breathing space. Will this approach work?

RT-PCR’s sensitivity, which is low in early illness, is even lower in asymptomatics, likely because of lower viral load, which means even more false negatives. The virus’s average incubation time of 5 days is enough time for false negative asymptomatics – remember they resemble the uninfected – to visit Disney World and infect another four.

Whether false negatives behave like tinder or a controllable fire will determine the testing strategy’s success. The net contagiousness of false negatives depends how many there are, which depends on how many are infected. To know how many are infected we need to test. Or, to know whether to believe a negative test in any person we must test widely – another Catch-22.

Maybe we need a bigger test.

Chest CT is an alternative. It’s rapid – takes less than an hour whereas RT-PCR can take over a day to report. In one study CT had a sensitivity of 97% in symptomatic patients and was often positive before RT-PCR. But there are caveats.

The real sensitivity of CT is likely much lower than 97% because the study has biases which inflate performance. CT, like RT-PCR, has a low sensitivity in early illness and even lower sensitivity in asymptomatic carriers for the same reason – lower viral load. Furthermore, CT has to be disinfected to prevent spread, which limits its access for other patients.

Coronavirus’s signature on CT – white patches in lungs, known as ground glass opacities – doesn’t have the uniqueness of the Mark of Zorro, and looks like lung injury from other rogue actors, which means we can mistake other serious conditions for coronavirus. Imagine hyenas in wolf’s clothing.

No test is perfect. We still use imaging despite its imperfections. But, let’s ask: What would you do differently if the test is negative and you have mild symptoms of cough and fever? Should you not self-isolate? What if you’re falsely negative and still contagious? If the advice dispensed whether the test is positive or negative is the same – i.e. quarantine for 2 weeks – what’s the test’s value?

Perhaps people will more likely comply with voluntary quarantine if they know they’re infected. Information can nudge behavior. But the logical corollary is that to comply with social distancing you need to be tested. People flocking to CT scans to affirm they’re not infected could infect those hitherto uninfected. A pandemic is no time to test nudge theories.

Does that mean testing has no value? Testing is valuable in managing populations. To individuals, the results must be framed wisely, such as by advising those who test positive to quarantine because “you’re infected” and those who test negative to keep social distancing because “you could still be infected.”

Even when policy goals are uniform, messaging can be oppositional. “Get yourself tested now” contradicts “you must hunker down now.” When messages contradict, one must choose which message to amplify.

The calculus of testing can change with new tests such as antibodies. The value of testing depends also on what isolation entails. A couple of weeks watching Netflix on your couch isn’t a big ask. If quarantine means being detained in an isolation center fenced by barbed wires, the cost of frivolous quarantining is higher and testing becomes more valuable.

I knew the doctor with the negative RT-PCR well. He’s heroically nonchalant about his wellbeing, an endearing quality that’s a liability in a contagion. In no time he’d be back in the hospital; or helping his elderly parents with grocery. Not all false negatives are equal. False-negative doctors could infect not just their patients but their colleagues, leaving fewer firefighters to fight fires.

It is better to mistake the man flu for coronavirus than coronavirus for the man flu. All he has to do is hunker down, which is what we should all be doing as much as we can.

Dr. Jha is a contributing editor to The Health Care Blog, where this article first appeared. He can be reached @RogueRad.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a physician WhatsApp group, a doctor posted he had fever of 101 °F and muscle ache, gently confessing that it felt like his typical “man flu” which heals with rest and scotch. Nevertheless, he worried that he had coronavirus. When the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the virus on his nasal swab came back negative, he jubilantly announced his relief.

Like Twitter, in WhatsApp emotions quickly outstrip facts. After he received a flurry of cheerful emojis, I ruined the party, advising that, despite the negative test, he assume he’s infected and quarantine for 2 weeks, with a bottle of scotch.

It’s conventional wisdom that the secret sauce to fighting the pandemic is testing for the virus. To gauge the breadth of the response against the pandemic we must know who and how many are infected. The depth of the response will be different if 25% of the population is infected than 1%. Testing is the third way, rejecting the false choice between death and economic depression. Without testing, strategy is faith based.

Our reliance on testing has clinical precedence – scarcely any decision in medicine is made without laboratory tests or imaging. Testing is as ingrained in medicine as the GPS is in driving. We use it even when we know our way home. But tests impose a question – what’ll you do differently if the test is negative?

That depends on the test’s performance and the consequences of being wrong. Though coronavirus damages the lungs with reckless abandon, it’s oddly a shy virus. In many patients, it takes 3-4 swabs to get a positive RT-PCR. The Chinese ophthalmologist, Li Wenliang, who originally sounded the alarm about coronavirus, had several negative tests. He died from the infection.

In one Chinese study, the sensitivity of RT-PCR – that’s the proportion of the infected who test positive – was around 70%. To put this in perspective, of 1,000 people infected with coronavirus, 700 will test positive but 300 will test negative.

Is this good enough?

Three hundred “false-negative” people may believe they’re not contagious because they got a clean chit and could infect others. False negatives could undo the hard work of containment.

Surely, better an imperfect test than no test. Isn’t flying with partially accurate weather information safer than no information? Here, aviation analogies aren’t helpful. Better to think of a forest fire.

Imagine only 80% of a burning forest is doused because it’s mistakenly believed that 20% of the forest isn’t burning because we can’t see it burning. It must be extinguished before it relights the whole forest, but to douse it you must know it’s burning – a Catch-22. That “20% of the forest” is a false negative – it’s burning but you think it’s not burning.

Because coronavirus isn’t planning to leave in a hurry and long-term lockdown has grave economic consequences, testing may enable precision quarantining of people, communities, and cities. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all lockdown on the whole nation, testing could tell us who can work and who should stay home. Why should Austin, if it has a low prevalence of infection, shut shop just because of New York City’s high prevalence?

Testing enables us to think globally but act locally. But it’s the asymptomatic people who drive the epidemic. To emphasize – asymptomatics are yet to have symptoms such as cough and fever. They’re feeling well and don’t know they’ve been colonized by the virus. Theoretically, if we test en masse we can find asymptomatics. If only those who test positive are quarantined, the rest can have some breathing space. Will this approach work?

RT-PCR’s sensitivity, which is low in early illness, is even lower in asymptomatics, likely because of lower viral load, which means even more false negatives. The virus’s average incubation time of 5 days is enough time for false negative asymptomatics – remember they resemble the uninfected – to visit Disney World and infect another four.

Whether false negatives behave like tinder or a controllable fire will determine the testing strategy’s success. The net contagiousness of false negatives depends how many there are, which depends on how many are infected. To know how many are infected we need to test. Or, to know whether to believe a negative test in any person we must test widely – another Catch-22.

Maybe we need a bigger test.

Chest CT is an alternative. It’s rapid – takes less than an hour whereas RT-PCR can take over a day to report. In one study CT had a sensitivity of 97% in symptomatic patients and was often positive before RT-PCR. But there are caveats.

The real sensitivity of CT is likely much lower than 97% because the study has biases which inflate performance. CT, like RT-PCR, has a low sensitivity in early illness and even lower sensitivity in asymptomatic carriers for the same reason – lower viral load. Furthermore, CT has to be disinfected to prevent spread, which limits its access for other patients.

Coronavirus’s signature on CT – white patches in lungs, known as ground glass opacities – doesn’t have the uniqueness of the Mark of Zorro, and looks like lung injury from other rogue actors, which means we can mistake other serious conditions for coronavirus. Imagine hyenas in wolf’s clothing.

No test is perfect. We still use imaging despite its imperfections. But, let’s ask: What would you do differently if the test is negative and you have mild symptoms of cough and fever? Should you not self-isolate? What if you’re falsely negative and still contagious? If the advice dispensed whether the test is positive or negative is the same – i.e. quarantine for 2 weeks – what’s the test’s value?

Perhaps people will more likely comply with voluntary quarantine if they know they’re infected. Information can nudge behavior. But the logical corollary is that to comply with social distancing you need to be tested. People flocking to CT scans to affirm they’re not infected could infect those hitherto uninfected. A pandemic is no time to test nudge theories.

Does that mean testing has no value? Testing is valuable in managing populations. To individuals, the results must be framed wisely, such as by advising those who test positive to quarantine because “you’re infected” and those who test negative to keep social distancing because “you could still be infected.”

Even when policy goals are uniform, messaging can be oppositional. “Get yourself tested now” contradicts “you must hunker down now.” When messages contradict, one must choose which message to amplify.

The calculus of testing can change with new tests such as antibodies. The value of testing depends also on what isolation entails. A couple of weeks watching Netflix on your couch isn’t a big ask. If quarantine means being detained in an isolation center fenced by barbed wires, the cost of frivolous quarantining is higher and testing becomes more valuable.

I knew the doctor with the negative RT-PCR well. He’s heroically nonchalant about his wellbeing, an endearing quality that’s a liability in a contagion. In no time he’d be back in the hospital; or helping his elderly parents with grocery. Not all false negatives are equal. False-negative doctors could infect not just their patients but their colleagues, leaving fewer firefighters to fight fires.

It is better to mistake the man flu for coronavirus than coronavirus for the man flu. All he has to do is hunker down, which is what we should all be doing as much as we can.

Dr. Jha is a contributing editor to The Health Care Blog, where this article first appeared. He can be reached @RogueRad.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a physician WhatsApp group, a doctor posted he had fever of 101 °F and muscle ache, gently confessing that it felt like his typical “man flu” which heals with rest and scotch. Nevertheless, he worried that he had coronavirus. When the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the virus on his nasal swab came back negative, he jubilantly announced his relief.

Like Twitter, in WhatsApp emotions quickly outstrip facts. After he received a flurry of cheerful emojis, I ruined the party, advising that, despite the negative test, he assume he’s infected and quarantine for 2 weeks, with a bottle of scotch.

It’s conventional wisdom that the secret sauce to fighting the pandemic is testing for the virus. To gauge the breadth of the response against the pandemic we must know who and how many are infected. The depth of the response will be different if 25% of the population is infected than 1%. Testing is the third way, rejecting the false choice between death and economic depression. Without testing, strategy is faith based.

Our reliance on testing has clinical precedence – scarcely any decision in medicine is made without laboratory tests or imaging. Testing is as ingrained in medicine as the GPS is in driving. We use it even when we know our way home. But tests impose a question – what’ll you do differently if the test is negative?

That depends on the test’s performance and the consequences of being wrong. Though coronavirus damages the lungs with reckless abandon, it’s oddly a shy virus. In many patients, it takes 3-4 swabs to get a positive RT-PCR. The Chinese ophthalmologist, Li Wenliang, who originally sounded the alarm about coronavirus, had several negative tests. He died from the infection.

In one Chinese study, the sensitivity of RT-PCR – that’s the proportion of the infected who test positive – was around 70%. To put this in perspective, of 1,000 people infected with coronavirus, 700 will test positive but 300 will test negative.

Is this good enough?

Three hundred “false-negative” people may believe they’re not contagious because they got a clean chit and could infect others. False negatives could undo the hard work of containment.

Surely, better an imperfect test than no test. Isn’t flying with partially accurate weather information safer than no information? Here, aviation analogies aren’t helpful. Better to think of a forest fire.

Imagine only 80% of a burning forest is doused because it’s mistakenly believed that 20% of the forest isn’t burning because we can’t see it burning. It must be extinguished before it relights the whole forest, but to douse it you must know it’s burning – a Catch-22. That “20% of the forest” is a false negative – it’s burning but you think it’s not burning.

Because coronavirus isn’t planning to leave in a hurry and long-term lockdown has grave economic consequences, testing may enable precision quarantining of people, communities, and cities. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all lockdown on the whole nation, testing could tell us who can work and who should stay home. Why should Austin, if it has a low prevalence of infection, shut shop just because of New York City’s high prevalence?

Testing enables us to think globally but act locally. But it’s the asymptomatic people who drive the epidemic. To emphasize – asymptomatics are yet to have symptoms such as cough and fever. They’re feeling well and don’t know they’ve been colonized by the virus. Theoretically, if we test en masse we can find asymptomatics. If only those who test positive are quarantined, the rest can have some breathing space. Will this approach work?

RT-PCR’s sensitivity, which is low in early illness, is even lower in asymptomatics, likely because of lower viral load, which means even more false negatives. The virus’s average incubation time of 5 days is enough time for false negative asymptomatics – remember they resemble the uninfected – to visit Disney World and infect another four.

Whether false negatives behave like tinder or a controllable fire will determine the testing strategy’s success. The net contagiousness of false negatives depends how many there are, which depends on how many are infected. To know how many are infected we need to test. Or, to know whether to believe a negative test in any person we must test widely – another Catch-22.

Maybe we need a bigger test.

Chest CT is an alternative. It’s rapid – takes less than an hour whereas RT-PCR can take over a day to report. In one study CT had a sensitivity of 97% in symptomatic patients and was often positive before RT-PCR. But there are caveats.

The real sensitivity of CT is likely much lower than 97% because the study has biases which inflate performance. CT, like RT-PCR, has a low sensitivity in early illness and even lower sensitivity in asymptomatic carriers for the same reason – lower viral load. Furthermore, CT has to be disinfected to prevent spread, which limits its access for other patients.

Coronavirus’s signature on CT – white patches in lungs, known as ground glass opacities – doesn’t have the uniqueness of the Mark of Zorro, and looks like lung injury from other rogue actors, which means we can mistake other serious conditions for coronavirus. Imagine hyenas in wolf’s clothing.

No test is perfect. We still use imaging despite its imperfections. But, let’s ask: What would you do differently if the test is negative and you have mild symptoms of cough and fever? Should you not self-isolate? What if you’re falsely negative and still contagious? If the advice dispensed whether the test is positive or negative is the same – i.e. quarantine for 2 weeks – what’s the test’s value?

Perhaps people will more likely comply with voluntary quarantine if they know they’re infected. Information can nudge behavior. But the logical corollary is that to comply with social distancing you need to be tested. People flocking to CT scans to affirm they’re not infected could infect those hitherto uninfected. A pandemic is no time to test nudge theories.

Does that mean testing has no value? Testing is valuable in managing populations. To individuals, the results must be framed wisely, such as by advising those who test positive to quarantine because “you’re infected” and those who test negative to keep social distancing because “you could still be infected.”

Even when policy goals are uniform, messaging can be oppositional. “Get yourself tested now” contradicts “you must hunker down now.” When messages contradict, one must choose which message to amplify.

The calculus of testing can change with new tests such as antibodies. The value of testing depends also on what isolation entails. A couple of weeks watching Netflix on your couch isn’t a big ask. If quarantine means being detained in an isolation center fenced by barbed wires, the cost of frivolous quarantining is higher and testing becomes more valuable.

I knew the doctor with the negative RT-PCR well. He’s heroically nonchalant about his wellbeing, an endearing quality that’s a liability in a contagion. In no time he’d be back in the hospital; or helping his elderly parents with grocery. Not all false negatives are equal. False-negative doctors could infect not just their patients but their colleagues, leaving fewer firefighters to fight fires.

It is better to mistake the man flu for coronavirus than coronavirus for the man flu. All he has to do is hunker down, which is what we should all be doing as much as we can.

Dr. Jha is a contributing editor to The Health Care Blog, where this article first appeared. He can be reached @RogueRad.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – On the days family physician Nick Yphantides, MD, announces updates on the COVID-19 epidemic to San Diego County residents, he can’t help but think about his late father.

In June of 2009, 75-year-old George Yphantides, a Steinway-trained piano technician who lived in Escondido, Calif., became the third person in the United States to die from complications of the pandemic H1N1 swine flu – just days before a vaccine became available.

“I loved my dad,” Dr. Yphantides, who has been San Diego County’s Chief Medical Officer since the year of his father’s death, said in an interview. “So, when you take a step back and take into consideration my sense of purpose in serving the 3.3 million residents of San Diego County, my passion based on my personal Christian faith, and my activation in terms of what happened to my dad, I have such a storm of internal sense of urgency right now.”

San Diego County and public health officials got experience with COVID-19 in advance of the country’s widely documented cases of community-based transmission. Around 9 pm on Jan. 31, 2020 – the Friday of Super Bowl weekend – Dr. Yphantides answered a phone call from Eric C. McDonald, MD, the county’s medical director of epidemiology. Dr. McDonald informed him that in a few days, a plane full of American citizens traveling from Wuhan, China, would be landing at Marine Corp Air Station Miramar in San Diego for a 2-week quarantine and that the task of providing medical support to any affected individuals fell on county officials.

“I will never forget that phone call,” he said. “We did have two positive cases. What we experienced with those evacuees was amazing surge preparation, and without exaggeration, I have worked 18-20 hours a day since that day.”

Fast forward to March 31, 2020, the county’s confirmed COVID-19 caseload had grown to 734, up 131 from the day before. As of the final day of March, nine people have died, with an age range between 25 and 87 years. Of confirmed cases, 61% are between the ages of 20 and 49, 43% are female, 19% have required hospitalization, 7% have required admission to intensive care, and the mortality rate has been 1.2%. Data currently show optimal proactive hospital capacity.

In the opinion of Dr. Yphantides, the 734 COVID-19 cases represent a tip of the iceberg. “How big is that iceberg? I can’t tell you yet,” he said.

Courtesy Tim McClain

Instead of being fearful or apprehensive about this uncertainty, Dr. Yphantides said he is “energized.”

"I see this as the Super Bowl of public health,” he exclaimed.

At least some of Dr. Yphantides’ vigor seems to be fueled by his pride in his team of professionals who have been helping him respond to the surge of COVID-19 cases.

As the county’s CMO, Dr. Yphantides serves as the liaison for the entire Emergency Medical System, the entire local health care delivery system, the entire physician and medical society network, the payor system, and the proportion of the area population using Medi-Cal.

Dr. Yphantides, who attended medical school at the University of California, San Diego, said that, compared with other regions of the country, San Diego County has made “tremendous progress” in overcoming many chronic lifestyle illnesses. For example, cardiovascular disease is no longer the number one cause of death in the county; it’s bookended by cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

“In the context of the COVID-19 response, [the county’s health care team established] an entire incident command system in our emergency operations center. Our emergency operations center is activated to the top level,” he said.

Dr. Yphantides shares public communication efforts with Dr. McDonald and Wilma J. Wooten, MD, the county’s public health officer. The San Diego County CMO also engages with policymakers, including the board of supervisors, local mayors, state legislators, and national legislators.

“Because of the relational trust capital that I have in this community, I get pulled into unexpected rooms of discussion,” he said. This included meeting with top executives from the San Diego Padres in early March, putting them on notice that the 2020 Major League Baseball season would likely be postponed. (This was officially announced on March 16.)

“We have made some decisions that have devastated some people economically. Talk about flipping the switch. We are living and making history every day. It is unbelievable,” he said.

“San Diego is a more aged population compared to many other parts of the country. ... [Part] of the reason why I’m so frantically doing everything I can to prepare, to batten down the hatches, and to optimize our health care delivery system is because we have a population that collectively is more at risk [for more serious complications from COVID-19]. A lot of what drives me is advocacy,” Dr. Yphantides noted.
 

A colleague’s perspective

Kristi L. Koenig, MD, medical director of emergency medical services for the County of San Diego, characterized Dr. Yphantides’ management style as collaborative. “Under his leadership, we have the perspective of ‘just focus on patient care, get it done, be creative, work together as a team,’ ” said Dr. Koenig, who coedited the textbook, “Koenig and Schultz’s Disaster Medicine: Comprehensive Principles and Practices” (Cambridge University Press, 2016). “He’s decisive and he’s responsive. You don’t have to wait a long time to get a decision, which is very important right now because this is so fast moving.”

Dr. Koenig, who has worked with Dr. Yphantides for 3 years, said that she routinely feeds him information that might help the team navigate its response to COVID-19. “For example, if I see an idea for how to get more [personal protective equipment] and feed it to him, he might have a contact somewhere in a factory that could make the PPE,” she said. “We work together by my reminding him to keep it within the incident command system structure, so that we can coordinate all the resources and not duplicate efforts.”

He uses his personal connections in a way to implement ideas that are beneficial to the overall goal of decreasing morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Koenig added.
 

Predictions for San Diego County

Dr. Yphantides said he considers San Diego to still be in the calm before the storm and that he is working hard to “board up his community.” The county CMO is also trying to prepare the health care delivery system to optimize its capacity, of doing interventions with hopes of lowering the curve and enhancing the capacity, he said.

When the storm hits, “it’s going be brutal, because we’re going to lose life,” Dr. Yphantides said.

“I am praying that maybe by some of our efforts, instead of a Category 5 storm, it’ll be a Category 3 storm,” he remarked.
 

The future of health care

Dr. Yphantides views the COVID-19 pandemic as “an absolute game-changer” in terms of what the future of health care delivery will look like in the United States. “Whether the right word is the ‘Amazonification’ of health care, or the ‘Uberization’ of health care, I don’t know, but the essence of how we deliver care is radically being transformed literally before our eyes,” he said. “I would encourage my colleagues to embrace that” and take care of their people by doing whatever it takes under this unprecedented paradigm.

Meanwhile, Dr. Yphantides braces for a potential surge of COVID-19 cases in San Diego County in the coming weeks. He honors the memory of his dad, and he expresses thanks for his mom, who cares for his two teenaged daughters while he helps steward the region’s response to the pandemic.

“Without my mom I could not function in the way that I’m currently functioning,” he said. “So, when you add all of those factors up, and wrap it with a bowtie of sincere love and passion for my community, there’s a fire that’s burning inside of me right now.”
 

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – On the days family physician Nick Yphantides, MD, announces updates on the COVID-19 epidemic to San Diego County residents, he can’t help but think about his late father.

In June of 2009, 75-year-old George Yphantides, a Steinway-trained piano technician who lived in Escondido, Calif., became the third person in the United States to die from complications of the pandemic H1N1 swine flu – just days before a vaccine became available.

“I loved my dad,” Dr. Yphantides, who has been San Diego County’s Chief Medical Officer since the year of his father’s death, said in an interview. “So, when you take a step back and take into consideration my sense of purpose in serving the 3.3 million residents of San Diego County, my passion based on my personal Christian faith, and my activation in terms of what happened to my dad, I have such a storm of internal sense of urgency right now.”

San Diego County and public health officials got experience with COVID-19 in advance of the country’s widely documented cases of community-based transmission. Around 9 pm on Jan. 31, 2020 – the Friday of Super Bowl weekend – Dr. Yphantides answered a phone call from Eric C. McDonald, MD, the county’s medical director of epidemiology. Dr. McDonald informed him that in a few days, a plane full of American citizens traveling from Wuhan, China, would be landing at Marine Corp Air Station Miramar in San Diego for a 2-week quarantine and that the task of providing medical support to any affected individuals fell on county officials.

“I will never forget that phone call,” he said. “We did have two positive cases. What we experienced with those evacuees was amazing surge preparation, and without exaggeration, I have worked 18-20 hours a day since that day.”

Fast forward to March 31, 2020, the county’s confirmed COVID-19 caseload had grown to 734, up 131 from the day before. As of the final day of March, nine people have died, with an age range between 25 and 87 years. Of confirmed cases, 61% are between the ages of 20 and 49, 43% are female, 19% have required hospitalization, 7% have required admission to intensive care, and the mortality rate has been 1.2%. Data currently show optimal proactive hospital capacity.

In the opinion of Dr. Yphantides, the 734 COVID-19 cases represent a tip of the iceberg. “How big is that iceberg? I can’t tell you yet,” he said.

Courtesy Tim McClain

Instead of being fearful or apprehensive about this uncertainty, Dr. Yphantides said he is “energized.”

"I see this as the Super Bowl of public health,” he exclaimed.

At least some of Dr. Yphantides’ vigor seems to be fueled by his pride in his team of professionals who have been helping him respond to the surge of COVID-19 cases.

As the county’s CMO, Dr. Yphantides serves as the liaison for the entire Emergency Medical System, the entire local health care delivery system, the entire physician and medical society network, the payor system, and the proportion of the area population using Medi-Cal.

Dr. Yphantides, who attended medical school at the University of California, San Diego, said that, compared with other regions of the country, San Diego County has made “tremendous progress” in overcoming many chronic lifestyle illnesses. For example, cardiovascular disease is no longer the number one cause of death in the county; it’s bookended by cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

“In the context of the COVID-19 response, [the county’s health care team established] an entire incident command system in our emergency operations center. Our emergency operations center is activated to the top level,” he said.

Dr. Yphantides shares public communication efforts with Dr. McDonald and Wilma J. Wooten, MD, the county’s public health officer. The San Diego County CMO also engages with policymakers, including the board of supervisors, local mayors, state legislators, and national legislators.

“Because of the relational trust capital that I have in this community, I get pulled into unexpected rooms of discussion,” he said. This included meeting with top executives from the San Diego Padres in early March, putting them on notice that the 2020 Major League Baseball season would likely be postponed. (This was officially announced on March 16.)

“We have made some decisions that have devastated some people economically. Talk about flipping the switch. We are living and making history every day. It is unbelievable,” he said.

“San Diego is a more aged population compared to many other parts of the country. ... [Part] of the reason why I’m so frantically doing everything I can to prepare, to batten down the hatches, and to optimize our health care delivery system is because we have a population that collectively is more at risk [for more serious complications from COVID-19]. A lot of what drives me is advocacy,” Dr. Yphantides noted.
 

A colleague’s perspective

Kristi L. Koenig, MD, medical director of emergency medical services for the County of San Diego, characterized Dr. Yphantides’ management style as collaborative. “Under his leadership, we have the perspective of ‘just focus on patient care, get it done, be creative, work together as a team,’ ” said Dr. Koenig, who coedited the textbook, “Koenig and Schultz’s Disaster Medicine: Comprehensive Principles and Practices” (Cambridge University Press, 2016). “He’s decisive and he’s responsive. You don’t have to wait a long time to get a decision, which is very important right now because this is so fast moving.”

Dr. Koenig, who has worked with Dr. Yphantides for 3 years, said that she routinely feeds him information that might help the team navigate its response to COVID-19. “For example, if I see an idea for how to get more [personal protective equipment] and feed it to him, he might have a contact somewhere in a factory that could make the PPE,” she said. “We work together by my reminding him to keep it within the incident command system structure, so that we can coordinate all the resources and not duplicate efforts.”

He uses his personal connections in a way to implement ideas that are beneficial to the overall goal of decreasing morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Koenig added.
 

Predictions for San Diego County

Dr. Yphantides said he considers San Diego to still be in the calm before the storm and that he is working hard to “board up his community.” The county CMO is also trying to prepare the health care delivery system to optimize its capacity, of doing interventions with hopes of lowering the curve and enhancing the capacity, he said.

When the storm hits, “it’s going be brutal, because we’re going to lose life,” Dr. Yphantides said.

“I am praying that maybe by some of our efforts, instead of a Category 5 storm, it’ll be a Category 3 storm,” he remarked.
 

The future of health care

Dr. Yphantides views the COVID-19 pandemic as “an absolute game-changer” in terms of what the future of health care delivery will look like in the United States. “Whether the right word is the ‘Amazonification’ of health care, or the ‘Uberization’ of health care, I don’t know, but the essence of how we deliver care is radically being transformed literally before our eyes,” he said. “I would encourage my colleagues to embrace that” and take care of their people by doing whatever it takes under this unprecedented paradigm.

Meanwhile, Dr. Yphantides braces for a potential surge of COVID-19 cases in San Diego County in the coming weeks. He honors the memory of his dad, and he expresses thanks for his mom, who cares for his two teenaged daughters while he helps steward the region’s response to the pandemic.

“Without my mom I could not function in the way that I’m currently functioning,” he said. “So, when you add all of those factors up, and wrap it with a bowtie of sincere love and passion for my community, there’s a fire that’s burning inside of me right now.”
 

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – On the days family physician Nick Yphantides, MD, announces updates on the COVID-19 epidemic to San Diego County residents, he can’t help but think about his late father.

In June of 2009, 75-year-old George Yphantides, a Steinway-trained piano technician who lived in Escondido, Calif., became the third person in the United States to die from complications of the pandemic H1N1 swine flu – just days before a vaccine became available.

“I loved my dad,” Dr. Yphantides, who has been San Diego County’s Chief Medical Officer since the year of his father’s death, said in an interview. “So, when you take a step back and take into consideration my sense of purpose in serving the 3.3 million residents of San Diego County, my passion based on my personal Christian faith, and my activation in terms of what happened to my dad, I have such a storm of internal sense of urgency right now.”

San Diego County and public health officials got experience with COVID-19 in advance of the country’s widely documented cases of community-based transmission. Around 9 pm on Jan. 31, 2020 – the Friday of Super Bowl weekend – Dr. Yphantides answered a phone call from Eric C. McDonald, MD, the county’s medical director of epidemiology. Dr. McDonald informed him that in a few days, a plane full of American citizens traveling from Wuhan, China, would be landing at Marine Corp Air Station Miramar in San Diego for a 2-week quarantine and that the task of providing medical support to any affected individuals fell on county officials.

“I will never forget that phone call,” he said. “We did have two positive cases. What we experienced with those evacuees was amazing surge preparation, and without exaggeration, I have worked 18-20 hours a day since that day.”

Fast forward to March 31, 2020, the county’s confirmed COVID-19 caseload had grown to 734, up 131 from the day before. As of the final day of March, nine people have died, with an age range between 25 and 87 years. Of confirmed cases, 61% are between the ages of 20 and 49, 43% are female, 19% have required hospitalization, 7% have required admission to intensive care, and the mortality rate has been 1.2%. Data currently show optimal proactive hospital capacity.

In the opinion of Dr. Yphantides, the 734 COVID-19 cases represent a tip of the iceberg. “How big is that iceberg? I can’t tell you yet,” he said.

Courtesy Tim McClain

Instead of being fearful or apprehensive about this uncertainty, Dr. Yphantides said he is “energized.”

"I see this as the Super Bowl of public health,” he exclaimed.

At least some of Dr. Yphantides’ vigor seems to be fueled by his pride in his team of professionals who have been helping him respond to the surge of COVID-19 cases.

As the county’s CMO, Dr. Yphantides serves as the liaison for the entire Emergency Medical System, the entire local health care delivery system, the entire physician and medical society network, the payor system, and the proportion of the area population using Medi-Cal.

Dr. Yphantides, who attended medical school at the University of California, San Diego, said that, compared with other regions of the country, San Diego County has made “tremendous progress” in overcoming many chronic lifestyle illnesses. For example, cardiovascular disease is no longer the number one cause of death in the county; it’s bookended by cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

“In the context of the COVID-19 response, [the county’s health care team established] an entire incident command system in our emergency operations center. Our emergency operations center is activated to the top level,” he said.

Dr. Yphantides shares public communication efforts with Dr. McDonald and Wilma J. Wooten, MD, the county’s public health officer. The San Diego County CMO also engages with policymakers, including the board of supervisors, local mayors, state legislators, and national legislators.

“Because of the relational trust capital that I have in this community, I get pulled into unexpected rooms of discussion,” he said. This included meeting with top executives from the San Diego Padres in early March, putting them on notice that the 2020 Major League Baseball season would likely be postponed. (This was officially announced on March 16.)

“We have made some decisions that have devastated some people economically. Talk about flipping the switch. We are living and making history every day. It is unbelievable,” he said.

“San Diego is a more aged population compared to many other parts of the country. ... [Part] of the reason why I’m so frantically doing everything I can to prepare, to batten down the hatches, and to optimize our health care delivery system is because we have a population that collectively is more at risk [for more serious complications from COVID-19]. A lot of what drives me is advocacy,” Dr. Yphantides noted.
 

A colleague’s perspective

Kristi L. Koenig, MD, medical director of emergency medical services for the County of San Diego, characterized Dr. Yphantides’ management style as collaborative. “Under his leadership, we have the perspective of ‘just focus on patient care, get it done, be creative, work together as a team,’ ” said Dr. Koenig, who coedited the textbook, “Koenig and Schultz’s Disaster Medicine: Comprehensive Principles and Practices” (Cambridge University Press, 2016). “He’s decisive and he’s responsive. You don’t have to wait a long time to get a decision, which is very important right now because this is so fast moving.”

Dr. Koenig, who has worked with Dr. Yphantides for 3 years, said that she routinely feeds him information that might help the team navigate its response to COVID-19. “For example, if I see an idea for how to get more [personal protective equipment] and feed it to him, he might have a contact somewhere in a factory that could make the PPE,” she said. “We work together by my reminding him to keep it within the incident command system structure, so that we can coordinate all the resources and not duplicate efforts.”

He uses his personal connections in a way to implement ideas that are beneficial to the overall goal of decreasing morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Koenig added.
 

Predictions for San Diego County

Dr. Yphantides said he considers San Diego to still be in the calm before the storm and that he is working hard to “board up his community.” The county CMO is also trying to prepare the health care delivery system to optimize its capacity, of doing interventions with hopes of lowering the curve and enhancing the capacity, he said.

When the storm hits, “it’s going be brutal, because we’re going to lose life,” Dr. Yphantides said.

“I am praying that maybe by some of our efforts, instead of a Category 5 storm, it’ll be a Category 3 storm,” he remarked.
 

The future of health care

Dr. Yphantides views the COVID-19 pandemic as “an absolute game-changer” in terms of what the future of health care delivery will look like in the United States. “Whether the right word is the ‘Amazonification’ of health care, or the ‘Uberization’ of health care, I don’t know, but the essence of how we deliver care is radically being transformed literally before our eyes,” he said. “I would encourage my colleagues to embrace that” and take care of their people by doing whatever it takes under this unprecedented paradigm.

Meanwhile, Dr. Yphantides braces for a potential surge of COVID-19 cases in San Diego County in the coming weeks. He honors the memory of his dad, and he expresses thanks for his mom, who cares for his two teenaged daughters while he helps steward the region’s response to the pandemic.

“Without my mom I could not function in the way that I’m currently functioning,” he said. “So, when you add all of those factors up, and wrap it with a bowtie of sincere love and passion for my community, there’s a fire that’s burning inside of me right now.”
 

[email protected]