MDedge Emergency Medicine

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?

Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.

More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.

There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.

Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.

Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:

• Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
• Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
• Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
• Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).

The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.

These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.

In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?

Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.

More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.

There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.

Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.

Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:

• Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
• Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
• Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
• Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).

The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.

These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.

In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?

Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.

More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.

There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.

Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.

Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:

• Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
• Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
• Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
• Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).

The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.

These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

Diagnoses of 12 common pediatric infectious diseases in a large pediatric primary care network declined significantly in the weeks after COVID-19 social distancing (SD) was enacted in Massachusetts, compared with the same time period in 2019, an analysis of EHR data has shown.

ArtMarie/E+

While declines in infectious disease transmission with SD are not surprising, “these data demonstrate the extent to which transmission of common pediatric infections can be altered when close contact with other children is eliminated,” Jonathan Hatoun, MD, MPH of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s in Brookline, Mass., and coauthors wrote in Pediatrics . “Notably, three of the studied diseases, namely, influenza, croup, and bronchiolitis, essentially disappeared with [social distancing].”

The researchers analyzed the weekly incidence of each diagnosis for similar calendar periods in 2019 and 2020. A pre-SD period was defined as week 1-9, starting on Jan. 1, and a post-SD period was defined as week 13-18. (The several-week gap represented an implementation period as social distancing was enacted in the state earlier in 2020, from a declared statewide state of emergency through school closures and stay-at-home advisories.)

To isolate the effect of widespread SD, they performed a “difference-in-differences regression analysis, with diagnosis count as a function of calendar year, time period (pre-SD versus post-SD) and the interaction between the two.” The Massachusetts pediatric network provides care for approximately 375,000 children in 100 locations around the state.

In their research brief, Dr. Hatoun and coauthors presented weekly rates expressed as diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day. The rate of bronchiolitis, for instance, was 18 and 8 in the pre- and post-SD–equivalent weeks of 2019, respectively, and 20 and 0.6 in the pre- and post-SD weeks of 2020. Their analysis showed the rate in the 2020 post-SD period to be 10 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower than they would have expected based on the 2019 trend.

Rates of pneumonia, acute otitis media, and streptococcal pharyngitis were similarly 14, 85, and 31 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower, respectively. The prevalence of each of the other conditions analyzed – the common cold, croup, gastroenteritis, nonstreptococcal pharyngitis, sinusitis, skin and soft tissue infections, and urinary tract infection (UTI) – also was significantly lower in the 2020 post-SD period than would be expected based on 2019 data (P < .001 for all diagnoses).
 

Putting things in perspective

“This study puts numbers to the sense that we have all had in pediatrics – that social distancing appears to have had a dramatic impact on the transmission of common childhood infectious diseases, especially other respiratory viral pathogens,” Audrey R. John, MD, PhD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

The authors acknowledged the possible role of families not seeking care, but said that a smaller decrease in diagnoses of UTI – generally not a contagious disease – “suggests that changes in care-seeking behavior had a relatively modest effect on the other observed declines.” (The rate of UTI for the pre- and post-SD periods was 3.3 and 3.7 per 100,000 patients per day in 2019, and 3.4 and 2.4 in 2020, for a difference in differences of –1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, David W. Kimberlin, MD and Erica C. Bjornstad, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the report “provocative” and wrote that similar observations of infections dropping during periods of isolation – namely, dramatic declines in influenza and other respiratory viruses in Seattle after a record snowstorm in 2019 – combined with findings from other modeling studies “suggest that the decline [reported in Boston] is indeed real” (Pediatrics 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-019232).

However, “we also now know that immunization rates for American children have plummeted since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [because of a] ... dramatic decrease in the use of health care during the first months of the pandemic,” they wrote. “Viewed through this lens,” the declines reported in Boston may reflect inflections going “undiagnosed and untreated.”

Ultimately, Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Bjornstad said, “the verdict remains out.”

Dr. John said that she and others are “concerned about children not seeking care in a timely manner, and [concerned] that reductions in reported infections might be due to a lack of recognition rather than a lack of transmission.”

In Philadelphia, however, declines in admissions for asthma exacerbations, “which are often caused by respiratory viral infections, suggests that this may not be the case,” said Dr. John, who was asked to comment on the study.

In addition, she said, the Massachusetts data showing that UTI diagnoses “are nearly as common this year as in 2019” are “reassuring.”
 

Are there lessons for the future?

Coauthor Louis Vernacchio, MD, MSc, chief medical officer of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s network, said in an interview that beyond the pandemic, it’s likely that “more careful attention to proven infection control practices in daycares and schools could reduce the burden of common infectious diseases in children.”

Dr. John similarly sees a long-term value of quantifying the impact of social distancing. “We’ve always known [for instance] that bronchiolitis is the result of viral infection.” Findings like the Massachusetts data “will help us advise families who might be trying to protect their premature infants (at risk for severe bronchiolitis) through social distancing.”

The analysis covered both in-person and telemedicine encounters occurring on weekdays.

The authors of the research brief indicated they have no relevant financial disclosures and there was no external funding. The authors of the commentary also reported they have no relevant financial disclosures, and Dr. John said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-006460.

Diagnoses of 12 common pediatric infectious diseases in a large pediatric primary care network declined significantly in the weeks after COVID-19 social distancing (SD) was enacted in Massachusetts, compared with the same time period in 2019, an analysis of EHR data has shown.

ArtMarie/E+

While declines in infectious disease transmission with SD are not surprising, “these data demonstrate the extent to which transmission of common pediatric infections can be altered when close contact with other children is eliminated,” Jonathan Hatoun, MD, MPH of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s in Brookline, Mass., and coauthors wrote in Pediatrics . “Notably, three of the studied diseases, namely, influenza, croup, and bronchiolitis, essentially disappeared with [social distancing].”

The researchers analyzed the weekly incidence of each diagnosis for similar calendar periods in 2019 and 2020. A pre-SD period was defined as week 1-9, starting on Jan. 1, and a post-SD period was defined as week 13-18. (The several-week gap represented an implementation period as social distancing was enacted in the state earlier in 2020, from a declared statewide state of emergency through school closures and stay-at-home advisories.)

To isolate the effect of widespread SD, they performed a “difference-in-differences regression analysis, with diagnosis count as a function of calendar year, time period (pre-SD versus post-SD) and the interaction between the two.” The Massachusetts pediatric network provides care for approximately 375,000 children in 100 locations around the state.

In their research brief, Dr. Hatoun and coauthors presented weekly rates expressed as diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day. The rate of bronchiolitis, for instance, was 18 and 8 in the pre- and post-SD–equivalent weeks of 2019, respectively, and 20 and 0.6 in the pre- and post-SD weeks of 2020. Their analysis showed the rate in the 2020 post-SD period to be 10 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower than they would have expected based on the 2019 trend.

Rates of pneumonia, acute otitis media, and streptococcal pharyngitis were similarly 14, 85, and 31 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower, respectively. The prevalence of each of the other conditions analyzed – the common cold, croup, gastroenteritis, nonstreptococcal pharyngitis, sinusitis, skin and soft tissue infections, and urinary tract infection (UTI) – also was significantly lower in the 2020 post-SD period than would be expected based on 2019 data (P < .001 for all diagnoses).
 

Putting things in perspective

“This study puts numbers to the sense that we have all had in pediatrics – that social distancing appears to have had a dramatic impact on the transmission of common childhood infectious diseases, especially other respiratory viral pathogens,” Audrey R. John, MD, PhD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

The authors acknowledged the possible role of families not seeking care, but said that a smaller decrease in diagnoses of UTI – generally not a contagious disease – “suggests that changes in care-seeking behavior had a relatively modest effect on the other observed declines.” (The rate of UTI for the pre- and post-SD periods was 3.3 and 3.7 per 100,000 patients per day in 2019, and 3.4 and 2.4 in 2020, for a difference in differences of –1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, David W. Kimberlin, MD and Erica C. Bjornstad, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the report “provocative” and wrote that similar observations of infections dropping during periods of isolation – namely, dramatic declines in influenza and other respiratory viruses in Seattle after a record snowstorm in 2019 – combined with findings from other modeling studies “suggest that the decline [reported in Boston] is indeed real” (Pediatrics 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-019232).

However, “we also now know that immunization rates for American children have plummeted since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [because of a] ... dramatic decrease in the use of health care during the first months of the pandemic,” they wrote. “Viewed through this lens,” the declines reported in Boston may reflect inflections going “undiagnosed and untreated.”

Ultimately, Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Bjornstad said, “the verdict remains out.”

Dr. John said that she and others are “concerned about children not seeking care in a timely manner, and [concerned] that reductions in reported infections might be due to a lack of recognition rather than a lack of transmission.”

In Philadelphia, however, declines in admissions for asthma exacerbations, “which are often caused by respiratory viral infections, suggests that this may not be the case,” said Dr. John, who was asked to comment on the study.

In addition, she said, the Massachusetts data showing that UTI diagnoses “are nearly as common this year as in 2019” are “reassuring.”
 

Are there lessons for the future?

Coauthor Louis Vernacchio, MD, MSc, chief medical officer of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s network, said in an interview that beyond the pandemic, it’s likely that “more careful attention to proven infection control practices in daycares and schools could reduce the burden of common infectious diseases in children.”

Dr. John similarly sees a long-term value of quantifying the impact of social distancing. “We’ve always known [for instance] that bronchiolitis is the result of viral infection.” Findings like the Massachusetts data “will help us advise families who might be trying to protect their premature infants (at risk for severe bronchiolitis) through social distancing.”

The analysis covered both in-person and telemedicine encounters occurring on weekdays.

The authors of the research brief indicated they have no relevant financial disclosures and there was no external funding. The authors of the commentary also reported they have no relevant financial disclosures, and Dr. John said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-006460.

Diagnoses of 12 common pediatric infectious diseases in a large pediatric primary care network declined significantly in the weeks after COVID-19 social distancing (SD) was enacted in Massachusetts, compared with the same time period in 2019, an analysis of EHR data has shown.

ArtMarie/E+

While declines in infectious disease transmission with SD are not surprising, “these data demonstrate the extent to which transmission of common pediatric infections can be altered when close contact with other children is eliminated,” Jonathan Hatoun, MD, MPH of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s in Brookline, Mass., and coauthors wrote in Pediatrics . “Notably, three of the studied diseases, namely, influenza, croup, and bronchiolitis, essentially disappeared with [social distancing].”

The researchers analyzed the weekly incidence of each diagnosis for similar calendar periods in 2019 and 2020. A pre-SD period was defined as week 1-9, starting on Jan. 1, and a post-SD period was defined as week 13-18. (The several-week gap represented an implementation period as social distancing was enacted in the state earlier in 2020, from a declared statewide state of emergency through school closures and stay-at-home advisories.)

To isolate the effect of widespread SD, they performed a “difference-in-differences regression analysis, with diagnosis count as a function of calendar year, time period (pre-SD versus post-SD) and the interaction between the two.” The Massachusetts pediatric network provides care for approximately 375,000 children in 100 locations around the state.

In their research brief, Dr. Hatoun and coauthors presented weekly rates expressed as diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day. The rate of bronchiolitis, for instance, was 18 and 8 in the pre- and post-SD–equivalent weeks of 2019, respectively, and 20 and 0.6 in the pre- and post-SD weeks of 2020. Their analysis showed the rate in the 2020 post-SD period to be 10 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower than they would have expected based on the 2019 trend.

Rates of pneumonia, acute otitis media, and streptococcal pharyngitis were similarly 14, 85, and 31 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower, respectively. The prevalence of each of the other conditions analyzed – the common cold, croup, gastroenteritis, nonstreptococcal pharyngitis, sinusitis, skin and soft tissue infections, and urinary tract infection (UTI) – also was significantly lower in the 2020 post-SD period than would be expected based on 2019 data (P < .001 for all diagnoses).
 

Putting things in perspective

“This study puts numbers to the sense that we have all had in pediatrics – that social distancing appears to have had a dramatic impact on the transmission of common childhood infectious diseases, especially other respiratory viral pathogens,” Audrey R. John, MD, PhD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

The authors acknowledged the possible role of families not seeking care, but said that a smaller decrease in diagnoses of UTI – generally not a contagious disease – “suggests that changes in care-seeking behavior had a relatively modest effect on the other observed declines.” (The rate of UTI for the pre- and post-SD periods was 3.3 and 3.7 per 100,000 patients per day in 2019, and 3.4 and 2.4 in 2020, for a difference in differences of –1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, David W. Kimberlin, MD and Erica C. Bjornstad, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the report “provocative” and wrote that similar observations of infections dropping during periods of isolation – namely, dramatic declines in influenza and other respiratory viruses in Seattle after a record snowstorm in 2019 – combined with findings from other modeling studies “suggest that the decline [reported in Boston] is indeed real” (Pediatrics 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-019232).

However, “we also now know that immunization rates for American children have plummeted since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [because of a] ... dramatic decrease in the use of health care during the first months of the pandemic,” they wrote. “Viewed through this lens,” the declines reported in Boston may reflect inflections going “undiagnosed and untreated.”

Ultimately, Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Bjornstad said, “the verdict remains out.”

Dr. John said that she and others are “concerned about children not seeking care in a timely manner, and [concerned] that reductions in reported infections might be due to a lack of recognition rather than a lack of transmission.”

In Philadelphia, however, declines in admissions for asthma exacerbations, “which are often caused by respiratory viral infections, suggests that this may not be the case,” said Dr. John, who was asked to comment on the study.

In addition, she said, the Massachusetts data showing that UTI diagnoses “are nearly as common this year as in 2019” are “reassuring.”
 

Are there lessons for the future?

Coauthor Louis Vernacchio, MD, MSc, chief medical officer of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s network, said in an interview that beyond the pandemic, it’s likely that “more careful attention to proven infection control practices in daycares and schools could reduce the burden of common infectious diseases in children.”

Dr. John similarly sees a long-term value of quantifying the impact of social distancing. “We’ve always known [for instance] that bronchiolitis is the result of viral infection.” Findings like the Massachusetts data “will help us advise families who might be trying to protect their premature infants (at risk for severe bronchiolitis) through social distancing.”

The analysis covered both in-person and telemedicine encounters occurring on weekdays.

The authors of the research brief indicated they have no relevant financial disclosures and there was no external funding. The authors of the commentary also reported they have no relevant financial disclosures, and Dr. John said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-006460.

A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.

Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.

An opportune moment

Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”

Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.

Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.

“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.

The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.

Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.

Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
 

‘Uniquely isolated’

Dr. Margolis noted that clinicians “are uniquely isolated, especially those with children” because many parents do not want their children mingling with children of HCPs.

“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.

Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.

Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.

Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.

“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
 

‘Battle buddies’

Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.

Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.

Self-care critical

Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”

Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.

The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”

They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.

The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.

Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.

An opportune moment

Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”

Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.

Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.

“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.

The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.

Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.

Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
 

‘Uniquely isolated’

Dr. Margolis noted that clinicians “are uniquely isolated, especially those with children” because many parents do not want their children mingling with children of HCPs.

“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.

Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.

Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.

Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.

“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
 

‘Battle buddies’

Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.

Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.

Self-care critical

Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”

Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.

The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”

They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.

The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.

Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.

An opportune moment

Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”

Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.

Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.

“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.

The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.

Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.

Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
 

‘Uniquely isolated’

Dr. Margolis noted that clinicians “are uniquely isolated, especially those with children” because many parents do not want their children mingling with children of HCPs.

“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.

Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.

Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.

Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.

“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
 

‘Battle buddies’

Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.

Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.

Self-care critical

Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”

Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.

The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”

They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.

The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Niket Sonpal, MD, thought he’d heard most of the myths about wearing masks during the pandemic, but the recent claim from a patient was a new one for the New York City gastroenterologist.

iStock/Getty Images Plus/skynesher

The patient refused to wear a mask because she heard inhaling bad breath through a mask could be toxic. The woman said the rumor was circulating on Facebook. Sonpal calmly explained that breathing your own breath is not going to cause health problems, he said.

“There’s a lot of controversy on masks,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s really just a lack of education and buy-in. Social media is the primary source of all this misinformation. These kinds of over-the-top hyperbole has basically led to a disbelief that masks are effective. The disbelief is hard to break up.”

As mask requirements have tightened amid the ongoing pandemic, debates about face coverings have emerged front and center, with a growing number of people opposing mask usage. So-called antimaskers dispute the benefits of wearing masks and many contend that face coverings decrease oxygen flow and can lead to illness. Sentiment against masks have led to protests nationwide, ignited public conflicts in some areas, and even generated lawsuits over mask mandates.

The issue presents an ongoing challenge for physicians as they strive to educate patients about the significance of masking against the flood of antimask messages on social media and beyond. Opposition to masks is particularly frustrating for health professionals who have witnessed patients, family, or friends become ill or die from the virus. Refusing to mask and failing to social distance have been linked to the rapid spread of the coronavirus and subsequent deaths.

“I have had colleagues pass away, and it’s extremely disheartening and frustrating to see science so easily disregarded,” Sonpal said. “Masks save lives and protect people and not wearing them is simply a lack of respect, not just for your fellow colleagues, but for a member of your species.”

Michael Rebresh, who helped create the antimask group Million Unmasked Patriots, says his group’s objections to masks are rational and reasonable. The group, which has more than 8,000 members, formed in response to guidance by Illinois state officials that children would only be allowed to return to school wearing a mask.

“Our objections are to the fact that masks on children in school have a greater propensity to make children sick from breathing in bacteria that forms on the inner layer of a mask worn for hours on end,” Rebresh said. “We have an objection to the increase of CO₂ intake and a decrease in oxygen flow for kids who need all the oxygen they can get during a learning environment. We recognized the masking of ourselves and kids for what it is: A political move to separate the two parties in our November election and define and create division between the two.”

Million Unmasked Patriots is one of dozens of antimask groups on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In July, Facebook suspended one such group, Unmasking America, which boasts 9,600 members, for posting repeated claims that face masks obstruct oxygen flow and have negative mental health effects.

Experts say the antiscience rhetoric is far from new. The antimask movement in many ways, shares similarities with that of the anti-vaccine movement, says Todd Wolynn, MD, a Pittsburgh pediatrician and cofounder of Shots Heard Round the World, an organization that defends vaccine advocates against coordinated online attacks by antivaxxers. Those espousing antimask views often relay similar or the same disinformation pushed by those with antivaccine views, Wolynn said.

“A lot of it is conspiracy-laden,” said Wolynn of the disinformation. “That Dr. [Anthony] Fauci somehow helped construct the pandemic and that it’s not real. That Bill Gates is funding the vaccine so he can inject people with microchips. All sorts of really out-there, ungrounded conspiracy theories. If you had Venn diagram of antimask and antivaxx, I would say there’s clearly overlap.”
 

Parallels between antimaskers, antivaxxers

Opponents to masks fall on a spectrum, explains Vineet Arora, MD, a hospitalist and associate chief medical officer–clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine. People who believe conspiracy theories and push misinformation are on one end, she said. There are also those who generally don’t believe the seriousness of the pandemic, feel their risk is minimal, or doubt the benefits of masks.

The two trains of thought resemble the distinction among parents who are antivaccine and those who are simply “vaccine hesitant,” says Arora, who co-authored a recent article about masking and misinformation that addresses antivaccine attitudes.

“While the antimask sentiment gets a lot of attention, I think it’s important to highlight there’s a lot of vocal anti-mask sentiment since most people are supportive of masks,” she said. “There might be people sitting on the fence who are just unsure about wearing a mask. That’s understandable because the science and the communication has evolved. There was a lot of early mixed messages about masking. Anytime you have confusion about the science or the science is evolving, it’s easy to have misinformation and then have that take off as myth.”

Just as antivaxxers work to swing the opinion of the vaccine hesitant, antimaskers are vying with public health advocates for the support of the mask hesitant, she said. Creating doubt in public health authorities is one way they are gaining followers. Anti-maskers often question and scrutinize past messaging about masks by public health officials, claiming that because guidance on masks has changed over time, the science behind masks and current guidance can’t be trusted, Wolynn said. Similarly, antivaxxers frequently question past actions by public health officials, such as the Tuskegee Experiment (which began in 1932), to try to poke holes in the credibility of public health officials and their advice.

Both the antimask and antivaccine movements also tend to base their resistance on a personal liberties argument, adds Jacqueline Winfield Fincher, MD, president for the American College of Physicians and an internist based in Thomson, Georgia. Antimaskers contend they should be free to decide whether to wear face coverings and that rules requiring masks infringe upon their civil liberties. Similarly, antivaxxers argue they should be free to decide whether to vaccinate their children and contend vaccine mandates violate their personal liberties.

Taking a deeper look, fear and control are two likely drivers of antimasking and antivaccine attitudes, Fincher said. Those refusing to wear masks may feel they have no control over the pandemic or its impacts, but they can control how they respond to mask-wearing requirements, she said.

Antivaccine parents often want more control over their children’s healthcare and falsely believe that vaccines are injecting something harmful into their children or may lead to harmful reactions.

“It’s a control issue and a defense mechanism,” she said. “Some people may feel helpless to deal with the pandemic or believe since it is not affecting them or their family, that it is not real. ‘If I just deny it and I don’t acknowledge facts, I don’t have to worry about it or do anything about it, and therefore I will have more control over my day-to-day life.’”
 

Groups fueling each other

In some cases, antimask and antivaxx groups are joining forces or adopting dual causes.

In California for instance, longtime opponents to vaccines are now objecting to mask policies as similar infringement to their bodily autonomy. Demonstrations in Texas, Idaho, and Michigan against mask mandates and other COVID-19 requirements have drawn support from anti-vaccine activists and incorporated antivaccine propaganda.

In Illinois, Million Unmasked Patriots, formally the Million Unmasked March, has received widespread attention for protesting both masks for returning schoolchildren and a future COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

A July protest planned by the antimask group triggered a letter by Arora and 500 other healthcare professionals to Illinois lawmakers decrying the group’s views and urging the state to move forward with universal masking in schools.

“What’s happening is those who are distrustful of government and public health and science are joining together,” said Arora, who coauthored a piece about the problem on KevinMD.com. “It’s important to address both movements together because they can quickly feed off each other and build in momentum. At the heart of both is really this deep skepticism of science.”

Rebresh of Million Unmasked Patriots said most of his members are not opposed to all vaccines, but rather they are opposed to “untested vaccines.” The primary concern is the inability to research long-term effects of a COVID-19 vaccine before its approval, he said.

Rebresh disagrees with the antimask movement being compared with the antivaccine movement. The two groups are “motivated by different things and a different set of circumstances drive their opinions,” he said. However, Rebresh believes that potential harm resulting from “mass vaccinations” is a valid concern. For this reason, he and his wife chose for their children to receive their vaccinations individually over a series of weeks, rather than the “kiddie cocktail of vaccines,” at a single visit, he said.

Vaccine scientist Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said the antivaccine movement appears to have grown stronger from the pandemic fueled by fresh conspiracies and new alliances. Antivaccine sentiment has been gaining steam over the last several years and collecting more allies from the far-right, said Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine and codirector for the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

“Now what you’re seeing is yet another expansion this year, with antivaccine groups, under the banner of ‘health freedom,’ campaigning against social distancing and wearing masks and contact tracing,” he said. “What was an antivaccine movement has now become a full-blown antiscience movement and an anti-public health movement. It’s causing a lot of damage and I believe costing a lot of American lives.”

Neil F. Johnson, PhD, who has studied the antivaccine movement and its social media proliferation during the pandemic, said online comments by antivaxxers frequently condemn mask usage and showcase memes making fun of masks.

“In those same narratives about opposing vaccines for COVID, we see a lot of discussion against masks,” said Johnson, a physics professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “If you don’t believe in the official picture of COVID, you don’t believe the policies or the advice that’s given about COVID.”

An analysis by Johnson that examined 1,300 Facebook pages found that, while antivaxxers have fewer followers than provaccine pages, antivaccine pages are more numerous, faster growing, and are more often connected to unrelated, undecided pages. Conversely, pages that advocate the benefits of vaccinations and explain the science behind immunizations are largely disconnected from such undecided communities, according to the study, published May 13 in Nature.

The study suggests the antivaccine movement is making influential strides during the pandemic and connecting with people who are undecided, while public health advocates are not building the same bridges, Johnson said.

“I think it’s hugely dangerous, because I don’t know any other moment in science or in public health when there was so much uncertainty in something affecting everybody,” he said. “Every policy that will be coming, everything depends on people buying into the official message. Once you have the seeds of doubt, that’s a very difficult thing to overcome. It’s an unprecedented challenge.”
 

How physicians and clinicians can help

A more aggressive approach is necessary when it comes to taking down antiscience content on social media, says Hotez. Too often, misinformation and antiscience rhetoric is allowed to linger on popular sites such as Facebook and Amazon.

Wolynn agrees. On personal or business platforms, it’s crucial to ban, hide, and delete such comments as quickly as possible, he said. On public sites, purposeful disinformation should be immediately reported to the platform.

At the same time, Wolynn said it’s essential to support those who make sound, science-based comments in social media forums.

“If you see someone who is pushing accurate, evidence-based information, and they come under attack, they should be supported and defended and empowered,” Wolynn said. “Shots Heard Round the World is doing all of those things, including galvanizing and recruiting more people to help get their voices out there.”

Expanded visibility by physicians and scientists would greatly help counter the spread of antiscience sentiment, adds Hotez.

“Too often, antiscience movements are able to flourish because scientists and physicians are invisible,” he said. “They’re too focused on either clinical practices or in the case of physician scientists, on grants and papers and not enough attention to public engagement. We’re going to have to change that around. We need to hear more from scientists directly.”

To that end, Wolynn said health care professionals, including medical students and residents, need to have formal training in communications, media, and social media as part of their education – and more support from employers to engage through social media.

“That’s where the fight is,” Wolynn said. “You can be the best diagnostician, the best clinician. You can make the right diagnosis and prescribe the right medication, but if families don’t hear what you’re saying, you’re not going to be effective. If you can’t be on the platform where they’re being influenced, we’re losing the battle.”
 

Speaking to your mask-hesitant patients

Concentrating on those who are uncertain about masks is particularly key for physicians and public health advocates as the pandemic continues, says Arora.

“It’s important for us to focus on the mask-hesitant who often don’t get the attention they need,” she said.

She suggests bringing up the subject of masks with patients during visits, asking about mask usage, discussing rumors they’ve heard, and emphasizing why masks are important. Be a role model by wearing a mask in your community and on social media, she added.

Some patients have real concerns about not being able to breathe through masks or anxiety disorders that can be aggravated even by the thought of wearing a mask, noted Susan R. Bailey, MD, president for the American Medical Association. Bailey, an immunologist, recently counseled a patient with a deviated nasal septum in addition to a panic disorder who was worried about wearing a mask, she said. Bailey listened to the patient’s concerns, discussed his health conditions, and proposed an alternative face covering that might make him more comfortable.

“Every patient is different,” Bailey said. “It’s important for us to remember that each person who is reluctant to wear a mask has their own reasons. It’s important for us to express some empathy – to agree with them, yes, masks are hot and inconvenient – and help understand their questions, which you may be able to answer to their satisfaction. There are patients that have legitimate questions and a physician caring about how they feel, can make all the difference.”

Physicians can also get involved with the AMA’s #MaskUp campaign, an effort to normalize mask wearing and debunk myths associated with masks. The campaign includes social media materials, slogans doctors can tweet, and profile pictures they can use on social media. The campaign’s toolkit includes images, videos, and information that physicians can share with patients and the public.

Enforcing strong mask policies at your practice and ensuring all staff are modeling appropriate mask behavior is also important, adds Fincher of the ACP. The college recently issued a policy supporting mask usage in community settings.

If a patient conveys an antimask belief, Fincher suggests not directly challenging the person’s views, but listening to them and offering objective data, discussing the science behind masks, and directing them to credible sources.

“Doctors are used to this. We recommend a lot of things to patients that they don’t want to do,” Fincher said. “If a patient feels attacked, they act defensively. But if you base your explanation in more objective terms with data, numbers, and personalize the risks and benefits of a vaccine, a healthy change in behavior, or a medication, then patients are more likely to hear your concerns and do the right thing. Having a long-term relationship with a trusted physician makes all of these issues much easier to discuss and to implement the best plan for the individual patient.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Niket Sonpal, MD, thought he’d heard most of the myths about wearing masks during the pandemic, but the recent claim from a patient was a new one for the New York City gastroenterologist.

iStock/Getty Images Plus/skynesher

The patient refused to wear a mask because she heard inhaling bad breath through a mask could be toxic. The woman said the rumor was circulating on Facebook. Sonpal calmly explained that breathing your own breath is not going to cause health problems, he said.

“There’s a lot of controversy on masks,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s really just a lack of education and buy-in. Social media is the primary source of all this misinformation. These kinds of over-the-top hyperbole has basically led to a disbelief that masks are effective. The disbelief is hard to break up.”

As mask requirements have tightened amid the ongoing pandemic, debates about face coverings have emerged front and center, with a growing number of people opposing mask usage. So-called antimaskers dispute the benefits of wearing masks and many contend that face coverings decrease oxygen flow and can lead to illness. Sentiment against masks have led to protests nationwide, ignited public conflicts in some areas, and even generated lawsuits over mask mandates.

The issue presents an ongoing challenge for physicians as they strive to educate patients about the significance of masking against the flood of antimask messages on social media and beyond. Opposition to masks is particularly frustrating for health professionals who have witnessed patients, family, or friends become ill or die from the virus. Refusing to mask and failing to social distance have been linked to the rapid spread of the coronavirus and subsequent deaths.

“I have had colleagues pass away, and it’s extremely disheartening and frustrating to see science so easily disregarded,” Sonpal said. “Masks save lives and protect people and not wearing them is simply a lack of respect, not just for your fellow colleagues, but for a member of your species.”

Michael Rebresh, who helped create the antimask group Million Unmasked Patriots, says his group’s objections to masks are rational and reasonable. The group, which has more than 8,000 members, formed in response to guidance by Illinois state officials that children would only be allowed to return to school wearing a mask.

“Our objections are to the fact that masks on children in school have a greater propensity to make children sick from breathing in bacteria that forms on the inner layer of a mask worn for hours on end,” Rebresh said. “We have an objection to the increase of CO₂ intake and a decrease in oxygen flow for kids who need all the oxygen they can get during a learning environment. We recognized the masking of ourselves and kids for what it is: A political move to separate the two parties in our November election and define and create division between the two.”

Million Unmasked Patriots is one of dozens of antimask groups on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In July, Facebook suspended one such group, Unmasking America, which boasts 9,600 members, for posting repeated claims that face masks obstruct oxygen flow and have negative mental health effects.

Experts say the antiscience rhetoric is far from new. The antimask movement in many ways, shares similarities with that of the anti-vaccine movement, says Todd Wolynn, MD, a Pittsburgh pediatrician and cofounder of Shots Heard Round the World, an organization that defends vaccine advocates against coordinated online attacks by antivaxxers. Those espousing antimask views often relay similar or the same disinformation pushed by those with antivaccine views, Wolynn said.

“A lot of it is conspiracy-laden,” said Wolynn of the disinformation. “That Dr. [Anthony] Fauci somehow helped construct the pandemic and that it’s not real. That Bill Gates is funding the vaccine so he can inject people with microchips. All sorts of really out-there, ungrounded conspiracy theories. If you had Venn diagram of antimask and antivaxx, I would say there’s clearly overlap.”
 

Parallels between antimaskers, antivaxxers

Opponents to masks fall on a spectrum, explains Vineet Arora, MD, a hospitalist and associate chief medical officer–clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine. People who believe conspiracy theories and push misinformation are on one end, she said. There are also those who generally don’t believe the seriousness of the pandemic, feel their risk is minimal, or doubt the benefits of masks.

The two trains of thought resemble the distinction among parents who are antivaccine and those who are simply “vaccine hesitant,” says Arora, who co-authored a recent article about masking and misinformation that addresses antivaccine attitudes.

“While the antimask sentiment gets a lot of attention, I think it’s important to highlight there’s a lot of vocal anti-mask sentiment since most people are supportive of masks,” she said. “There might be people sitting on the fence who are just unsure about wearing a mask. That’s understandable because the science and the communication has evolved. There was a lot of early mixed messages about masking. Anytime you have confusion about the science or the science is evolving, it’s easy to have misinformation and then have that take off as myth.”

Just as antivaxxers work to swing the opinion of the vaccine hesitant, antimaskers are vying with public health advocates for the support of the mask hesitant, she said. Creating doubt in public health authorities is one way they are gaining followers. Anti-maskers often question and scrutinize past messaging about masks by public health officials, claiming that because guidance on masks has changed over time, the science behind masks and current guidance can’t be trusted, Wolynn said. Similarly, antivaxxers frequently question past actions by public health officials, such as the Tuskegee Experiment (which began in 1932), to try to poke holes in the credibility of public health officials and their advice.

Both the antimask and antivaccine movements also tend to base their resistance on a personal liberties argument, adds Jacqueline Winfield Fincher, MD, president for the American College of Physicians and an internist based in Thomson, Georgia. Antimaskers contend they should be free to decide whether to wear face coverings and that rules requiring masks infringe upon their civil liberties. Similarly, antivaxxers argue they should be free to decide whether to vaccinate their children and contend vaccine mandates violate their personal liberties.

Taking a deeper look, fear and control are two likely drivers of antimasking and antivaccine attitudes, Fincher said. Those refusing to wear masks may feel they have no control over the pandemic or its impacts, but they can control how they respond to mask-wearing requirements, she said.

Antivaccine parents often want more control over their children’s healthcare and falsely believe that vaccines are injecting something harmful into their children or may lead to harmful reactions.

“It’s a control issue and a defense mechanism,” she said. “Some people may feel helpless to deal with the pandemic or believe since it is not affecting them or their family, that it is not real. ‘If I just deny it and I don’t acknowledge facts, I don’t have to worry about it or do anything about it, and therefore I will have more control over my day-to-day life.’”
 

Groups fueling each other

In some cases, antimask and antivaxx groups are joining forces or adopting dual causes.

In California for instance, longtime opponents to vaccines are now objecting to mask policies as similar infringement to their bodily autonomy. Demonstrations in Texas, Idaho, and Michigan against mask mandates and other COVID-19 requirements have drawn support from anti-vaccine activists and incorporated antivaccine propaganda.

In Illinois, Million Unmasked Patriots, formally the Million Unmasked March, has received widespread attention for protesting both masks for returning schoolchildren and a future COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

A July protest planned by the antimask group triggered a letter by Arora and 500 other healthcare professionals to Illinois lawmakers decrying the group’s views and urging the state to move forward with universal masking in schools.

“What’s happening is those who are distrustful of government and public health and science are joining together,” said Arora, who coauthored a piece about the problem on KevinMD.com. “It’s important to address both movements together because they can quickly feed off each other and build in momentum. At the heart of both is really this deep skepticism of science.”

Rebresh of Million Unmasked Patriots said most of his members are not opposed to all vaccines, but rather they are opposed to “untested vaccines.” The primary concern is the inability to research long-term effects of a COVID-19 vaccine before its approval, he said.

Rebresh disagrees with the antimask movement being compared with the antivaccine movement. The two groups are “motivated by different things and a different set of circumstances drive their opinions,” he said. However, Rebresh believes that potential harm resulting from “mass vaccinations” is a valid concern. For this reason, he and his wife chose for their children to receive their vaccinations individually over a series of weeks, rather than the “kiddie cocktail of vaccines,” at a single visit, he said.

Vaccine scientist Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said the antivaccine movement appears to have grown stronger from the pandemic fueled by fresh conspiracies and new alliances. Antivaccine sentiment has been gaining steam over the last several years and collecting more allies from the far-right, said Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine and codirector for the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

“Now what you’re seeing is yet another expansion this year, with antivaccine groups, under the banner of ‘health freedom,’ campaigning against social distancing and wearing masks and contact tracing,” he said. “What was an antivaccine movement has now become a full-blown antiscience movement and an anti-public health movement. It’s causing a lot of damage and I believe costing a lot of American lives.”

Neil F. Johnson, PhD, who has studied the antivaccine movement and its social media proliferation during the pandemic, said online comments by antivaxxers frequently condemn mask usage and showcase memes making fun of masks.

“In those same narratives about opposing vaccines for COVID, we see a lot of discussion against masks,” said Johnson, a physics professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “If you don’t believe in the official picture of COVID, you don’t believe the policies or the advice that’s given about COVID.”

An analysis by Johnson that examined 1,300 Facebook pages found that, while antivaxxers have fewer followers than provaccine pages, antivaccine pages are more numerous, faster growing, and are more often connected to unrelated, undecided pages. Conversely, pages that advocate the benefits of vaccinations and explain the science behind immunizations are largely disconnected from such undecided communities, according to the study, published May 13 in Nature.

The study suggests the antivaccine movement is making influential strides during the pandemic and connecting with people who are undecided, while public health advocates are not building the same bridges, Johnson said.

“I think it’s hugely dangerous, because I don’t know any other moment in science or in public health when there was so much uncertainty in something affecting everybody,” he said. “Every policy that will be coming, everything depends on people buying into the official message. Once you have the seeds of doubt, that’s a very difficult thing to overcome. It’s an unprecedented challenge.”
 

How physicians and clinicians can help

A more aggressive approach is necessary when it comes to taking down antiscience content on social media, says Hotez. Too often, misinformation and antiscience rhetoric is allowed to linger on popular sites such as Facebook and Amazon.

Wolynn agrees. On personal or business platforms, it’s crucial to ban, hide, and delete such comments as quickly as possible, he said. On public sites, purposeful disinformation should be immediately reported to the platform.

At the same time, Wolynn said it’s essential to support those who make sound, science-based comments in social media forums.

“If you see someone who is pushing accurate, evidence-based information, and they come under attack, they should be supported and defended and empowered,” Wolynn said. “Shots Heard Round the World is doing all of those things, including galvanizing and recruiting more people to help get their voices out there.”

Expanded visibility by physicians and scientists would greatly help counter the spread of antiscience sentiment, adds Hotez.

“Too often, antiscience movements are able to flourish because scientists and physicians are invisible,” he said. “They’re too focused on either clinical practices or in the case of physician scientists, on grants and papers and not enough attention to public engagement. We’re going to have to change that around. We need to hear more from scientists directly.”

To that end, Wolynn said health care professionals, including medical students and residents, need to have formal training in communications, media, and social media as part of their education – and more support from employers to engage through social media.

“That’s where the fight is,” Wolynn said. “You can be the best diagnostician, the best clinician. You can make the right diagnosis and prescribe the right medication, but if families don’t hear what you’re saying, you’re not going to be effective. If you can’t be on the platform where they’re being influenced, we’re losing the battle.”
 

Speaking to your mask-hesitant patients

Concentrating on those who are uncertain about masks is particularly key for physicians and public health advocates as the pandemic continues, says Arora.

“It’s important for us to focus on the mask-hesitant who often don’t get the attention they need,” she said.

She suggests bringing up the subject of masks with patients during visits, asking about mask usage, discussing rumors they’ve heard, and emphasizing why masks are important. Be a role model by wearing a mask in your community and on social media, she added.

Some patients have real concerns about not being able to breathe through masks or anxiety disorders that can be aggravated even by the thought of wearing a mask, noted Susan R. Bailey, MD, president for the American Medical Association. Bailey, an immunologist, recently counseled a patient with a deviated nasal septum in addition to a panic disorder who was worried about wearing a mask, she said. Bailey listened to the patient’s concerns, discussed his health conditions, and proposed an alternative face covering that might make him more comfortable.

“Every patient is different,” Bailey said. “It’s important for us to remember that each person who is reluctant to wear a mask has their own reasons. It’s important for us to express some empathy – to agree with them, yes, masks are hot and inconvenient – and help understand their questions, which you may be able to answer to their satisfaction. There are patients that have legitimate questions and a physician caring about how they feel, can make all the difference.”

Physicians can also get involved with the AMA’s #MaskUp campaign, an effort to normalize mask wearing and debunk myths associated with masks. The campaign includes social media materials, slogans doctors can tweet, and profile pictures they can use on social media. The campaign’s toolkit includes images, videos, and information that physicians can share with patients and the public.

Enforcing strong mask policies at your practice and ensuring all staff are modeling appropriate mask behavior is also important, adds Fincher of the ACP. The college recently issued a policy supporting mask usage in community settings.

If a patient conveys an antimask belief, Fincher suggests not directly challenging the person’s views, but listening to them and offering objective data, discussing the science behind masks, and directing them to credible sources.

“Doctors are used to this. We recommend a lot of things to patients that they don’t want to do,” Fincher said. “If a patient feels attacked, they act defensively. But if you base your explanation in more objective terms with data, numbers, and personalize the risks and benefits of a vaccine, a healthy change in behavior, or a medication, then patients are more likely to hear your concerns and do the right thing. Having a long-term relationship with a trusted physician makes all of these issues much easier to discuss and to implement the best plan for the individual patient.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Niket Sonpal, MD, thought he’d heard most of the myths about wearing masks during the pandemic, but the recent claim from a patient was a new one for the New York City gastroenterologist.

iStock/Getty Images Plus/skynesher

The patient refused to wear a mask because she heard inhaling bad breath through a mask could be toxic. The woman said the rumor was circulating on Facebook. Sonpal calmly explained that breathing your own breath is not going to cause health problems, he said.

“There’s a lot of controversy on masks,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s really just a lack of education and buy-in. Social media is the primary source of all this misinformation. These kinds of over-the-top hyperbole has basically led to a disbelief that masks are effective. The disbelief is hard to break up.”

As mask requirements have tightened amid the ongoing pandemic, debates about face coverings have emerged front and center, with a growing number of people opposing mask usage. So-called antimaskers dispute the benefits of wearing masks and many contend that face coverings decrease oxygen flow and can lead to illness. Sentiment against masks have led to protests nationwide, ignited public conflicts in some areas, and even generated lawsuits over mask mandates.

The issue presents an ongoing challenge for physicians as they strive to educate patients about the significance of masking against the flood of antimask messages on social media and beyond. Opposition to masks is particularly frustrating for health professionals who have witnessed patients, family, or friends become ill or die from the virus. Refusing to mask and failing to social distance have been linked to the rapid spread of the coronavirus and subsequent deaths.

“I have had colleagues pass away, and it’s extremely disheartening and frustrating to see science so easily disregarded,” Sonpal said. “Masks save lives and protect people and not wearing them is simply a lack of respect, not just for your fellow colleagues, but for a member of your species.”

Michael Rebresh, who helped create the antimask group Million Unmasked Patriots, says his group’s objections to masks are rational and reasonable. The group, which has more than 8,000 members, formed in response to guidance by Illinois state officials that children would only be allowed to return to school wearing a mask.

“Our objections are to the fact that masks on children in school have a greater propensity to make children sick from breathing in bacteria that forms on the inner layer of a mask worn for hours on end,” Rebresh said. “We have an objection to the increase of CO₂ intake and a decrease in oxygen flow for kids who need all the oxygen they can get during a learning environment. We recognized the masking of ourselves and kids for what it is: A political move to separate the two parties in our November election and define and create division between the two.”

Million Unmasked Patriots is one of dozens of antimask groups on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In July, Facebook suspended one such group, Unmasking America, which boasts 9,600 members, for posting repeated claims that face masks obstruct oxygen flow and have negative mental health effects.

Experts say the antiscience rhetoric is far from new. The antimask movement in many ways, shares similarities with that of the anti-vaccine movement, says Todd Wolynn, MD, a Pittsburgh pediatrician and cofounder of Shots Heard Round the World, an organization that defends vaccine advocates against coordinated online attacks by antivaxxers. Those espousing antimask views often relay similar or the same disinformation pushed by those with antivaccine views, Wolynn said.

“A lot of it is conspiracy-laden,” said Wolynn of the disinformation. “That Dr. [Anthony] Fauci somehow helped construct the pandemic and that it’s not real. That Bill Gates is funding the vaccine so he can inject people with microchips. All sorts of really out-there, ungrounded conspiracy theories. If you had Venn diagram of antimask and antivaxx, I would say there’s clearly overlap.”
 

Parallels between antimaskers, antivaxxers

Opponents to masks fall on a spectrum, explains Vineet Arora, MD, a hospitalist and associate chief medical officer–clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine. People who believe conspiracy theories and push misinformation are on one end, she said. There are also those who generally don’t believe the seriousness of the pandemic, feel their risk is minimal, or doubt the benefits of masks.

The two trains of thought resemble the distinction among parents who are antivaccine and those who are simply “vaccine hesitant,” says Arora, who co-authored a recent article about masking and misinformation that addresses antivaccine attitudes.

“While the antimask sentiment gets a lot of attention, I think it’s important to highlight there’s a lot of vocal anti-mask sentiment since most people are supportive of masks,” she said. “There might be people sitting on the fence who are just unsure about wearing a mask. That’s understandable because the science and the communication has evolved. There was a lot of early mixed messages about masking. Anytime you have confusion about the science or the science is evolving, it’s easy to have misinformation and then have that take off as myth.”

Just as antivaxxers work to swing the opinion of the vaccine hesitant, antimaskers are vying with public health advocates for the support of the mask hesitant, she said. Creating doubt in public health authorities is one way they are gaining followers. Anti-maskers often question and scrutinize past messaging about masks by public health officials, claiming that because guidance on masks has changed over time, the science behind masks and current guidance can’t be trusted, Wolynn said. Similarly, antivaxxers frequently question past actions by public health officials, such as the Tuskegee Experiment (which began in 1932), to try to poke holes in the credibility of public health officials and their advice.

Both the antimask and antivaccine movements also tend to base their resistance on a personal liberties argument, adds Jacqueline Winfield Fincher, MD, president for the American College of Physicians and an internist based in Thomson, Georgia. Antimaskers contend they should be free to decide whether to wear face coverings and that rules requiring masks infringe upon their civil liberties. Similarly, antivaxxers argue they should be free to decide whether to vaccinate their children and contend vaccine mandates violate their personal liberties.

Taking a deeper look, fear and control are two likely drivers of antimasking and antivaccine attitudes, Fincher said. Those refusing to wear masks may feel they have no control over the pandemic or its impacts, but they can control how they respond to mask-wearing requirements, she said.

Antivaccine parents often want more control over their children’s healthcare and falsely believe that vaccines are injecting something harmful into their children or may lead to harmful reactions.

“It’s a control issue and a defense mechanism,” she said. “Some people may feel helpless to deal with the pandemic or believe since it is not affecting them or their family, that it is not real. ‘If I just deny it and I don’t acknowledge facts, I don’t have to worry about it or do anything about it, and therefore I will have more control over my day-to-day life.’”
 

Groups fueling each other

In some cases, antimask and antivaxx groups are joining forces or adopting dual causes.

In California for instance, longtime opponents to vaccines are now objecting to mask policies as similar infringement to their bodily autonomy. Demonstrations in Texas, Idaho, and Michigan against mask mandates and other COVID-19 requirements have drawn support from anti-vaccine activists and incorporated antivaccine propaganda.

In Illinois, Million Unmasked Patriots, formally the Million Unmasked March, has received widespread attention for protesting both masks for returning schoolchildren and a future COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

A July protest planned by the antimask group triggered a letter by Arora and 500 other healthcare professionals to Illinois lawmakers decrying the group’s views and urging the state to move forward with universal masking in schools.

“What’s happening is those who are distrustful of government and public health and science are joining together,” said Arora, who coauthored a piece about the problem on KevinMD.com. “It’s important to address both movements together because they can quickly feed off each other and build in momentum. At the heart of both is really this deep skepticism of science.”

Rebresh of Million Unmasked Patriots said most of his members are not opposed to all vaccines, but rather they are opposed to “untested vaccines.” The primary concern is the inability to research long-term effects of a COVID-19 vaccine before its approval, he said.

Rebresh disagrees with the antimask movement being compared with the antivaccine movement. The two groups are “motivated by different things and a different set of circumstances drive their opinions,” he said. However, Rebresh believes that potential harm resulting from “mass vaccinations” is a valid concern. For this reason, he and his wife chose for their children to receive their vaccinations individually over a series of weeks, rather than the “kiddie cocktail of vaccines,” at a single visit, he said.

Vaccine scientist Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said the antivaccine movement appears to have grown stronger from the pandemic fueled by fresh conspiracies and new alliances. Antivaccine sentiment has been gaining steam over the last several years and collecting more allies from the far-right, said Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine and codirector for the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

“Now what you’re seeing is yet another expansion this year, with antivaccine groups, under the banner of ‘health freedom,’ campaigning against social distancing and wearing masks and contact tracing,” he said. “What was an antivaccine movement has now become a full-blown antiscience movement and an anti-public health movement. It’s causing a lot of damage and I believe costing a lot of American lives.”

Neil F. Johnson, PhD, who has studied the antivaccine movement and its social media proliferation during the pandemic, said online comments by antivaxxers frequently condemn mask usage and showcase memes making fun of masks.

“In those same narratives about opposing vaccines for COVID, we see a lot of discussion against masks,” said Johnson, a physics professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “If you don’t believe in the official picture of COVID, you don’t believe the policies or the advice that’s given about COVID.”

An analysis by Johnson that examined 1,300 Facebook pages found that, while antivaxxers have fewer followers than provaccine pages, antivaccine pages are more numerous, faster growing, and are more often connected to unrelated, undecided pages. Conversely, pages that advocate the benefits of vaccinations and explain the science behind immunizations are largely disconnected from such undecided communities, according to the study, published May 13 in Nature.

The study suggests the antivaccine movement is making influential strides during the pandemic and connecting with people who are undecided, while public health advocates are not building the same bridges, Johnson said.

“I think it’s hugely dangerous, because I don’t know any other moment in science or in public health when there was so much uncertainty in something affecting everybody,” he said. “Every policy that will be coming, everything depends on people buying into the official message. Once you have the seeds of doubt, that’s a very difficult thing to overcome. It’s an unprecedented challenge.”
 

How physicians and clinicians can help

A more aggressive approach is necessary when it comes to taking down antiscience content on social media, says Hotez. Too often, misinformation and antiscience rhetoric is allowed to linger on popular sites such as Facebook and Amazon.

Wolynn agrees. On personal or business platforms, it’s crucial to ban, hide, and delete such comments as quickly as possible, he said. On public sites, purposeful disinformation should be immediately reported to the platform.

At the same time, Wolynn said it’s essential to support those who make sound, science-based comments in social media forums.

“If you see someone who is pushing accurate, evidence-based information, and they come under attack, they should be supported and defended and empowered,” Wolynn said. “Shots Heard Round the World is doing all of those things, including galvanizing and recruiting more people to help get their voices out there.”

Expanded visibility by physicians and scientists would greatly help counter the spread of antiscience sentiment, adds Hotez.

“Too often, antiscience movements are able to flourish because scientists and physicians are invisible,” he said. “They’re too focused on either clinical practices or in the case of physician scientists, on grants and papers and not enough attention to public engagement. We’re going to have to change that around. We need to hear more from scientists directly.”

To that end, Wolynn said health care professionals, including medical students and residents, need to have formal training in communications, media, and social media as part of their education – and more support from employers to engage through social media.

“That’s where the fight is,” Wolynn said. “You can be the best diagnostician, the best clinician. You can make the right diagnosis and prescribe the right medication, but if families don’t hear what you’re saying, you’re not going to be effective. If you can’t be on the platform where they’re being influenced, we’re losing the battle.”
 

Speaking to your mask-hesitant patients

Concentrating on those who are uncertain about masks is particularly key for physicians and public health advocates as the pandemic continues, says Arora.

“It’s important for us to focus on the mask-hesitant who often don’t get the attention they need,” she said.

She suggests bringing up the subject of masks with patients during visits, asking about mask usage, discussing rumors they’ve heard, and emphasizing why masks are important. Be a role model by wearing a mask in your community and on social media, she added.

Some patients have real concerns about not being able to breathe through masks or anxiety disorders that can be aggravated even by the thought of wearing a mask, noted Susan R. Bailey, MD, president for the American Medical Association. Bailey, an immunologist, recently counseled a patient with a deviated nasal septum in addition to a panic disorder who was worried about wearing a mask, she said. Bailey listened to the patient’s concerns, discussed his health conditions, and proposed an alternative face covering that might make him more comfortable.

“Every patient is different,” Bailey said. “It’s important for us to remember that each person who is reluctant to wear a mask has their own reasons. It’s important for us to express some empathy – to agree with them, yes, masks are hot and inconvenient – and help understand their questions, which you may be able to answer to their satisfaction. There are patients that have legitimate questions and a physician caring about how they feel, can make all the difference.”

Physicians can also get involved with the AMA’s #MaskUp campaign, an effort to normalize mask wearing and debunk myths associated with masks. The campaign includes social media materials, slogans doctors can tweet, and profile pictures they can use on social media. The campaign’s toolkit includes images, videos, and information that physicians can share with patients and the public.

Enforcing strong mask policies at your practice and ensuring all staff are modeling appropriate mask behavior is also important, adds Fincher of the ACP. The college recently issued a policy supporting mask usage in community settings.

If a patient conveys an antimask belief, Fincher suggests not directly challenging the person’s views, but listening to them and offering objective data, discussing the science behind masks, and directing them to credible sources.

“Doctors are used to this. We recommend a lot of things to patients that they don’t want to do,” Fincher said. “If a patient feels attacked, they act defensively. But if you base your explanation in more objective terms with data, numbers, and personalize the risks and benefits of a vaccine, a healthy change in behavior, or a medication, then patients are more likely to hear your concerns and do the right thing. Having a long-term relationship with a trusted physician makes all of these issues much easier to discuss and to implement the best plan for the individual patient.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of children infected with COVID-19 rose by 7.8% during the week ending Sept. 3, putting the United States over the half-million mark in cumulative child cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

States have reported 513,415 cases of COVID-19 in children since the beginning of the pandemic, with almost 37,000 coming in the last week, the AAP and the CHA said Sept. 8 in the weekly report. That figure includes New York City – the rest of New York State is not reporting ages for COVID-19 patients – as well as Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

“These numbers are a chilling reminder of why we need to take this virus seriously,” AAP President Sara Goza, MD, said in a written statement.

Children now represent 9.8% of the almost 5.3 million cases that have been reported in Americans of all ages. The proportion of child cases has continued to increase as the pandemic has progressed – it was 8.0% as of mid-July and 5.2% in early June, the data show.

“Throughout the summer, surges in the virus have occurred in Southern, Western, and Midwestern states,” the AAP statement said.

The latest AAP/CHA report shows that, from Aug. 27 to Sept. 3, the total number of child cases jumped by 33.7% in South Dakota, more than any other state. North Dakota was next at 22.7%, followed by Hawaii (18.1%), Missouri (16.8%), and Kentucky (16.4%).

“This rapid rise in positive cases occurred over the summer, and as the weather cools, we know people will spend more time indoors,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases. “The goal is to get children back into schools for in-person learning, but in many communities, this is not possible as the virus spreads unchecked.”

The smallest increase over the last week, just 0.9%, came in Rhode Island, with Massachusetts just a bit higher at 1.0%. Also at the low end of the increase scale are Arizona (3.3%) and Louisiana (4.0%), two states that have very high rates of cumulative cases: 1,380 per 100,000 children for Arizona and 1,234 per 100,000 for Louisiana, the report said.

To give those figures some context, Tennessee has the highest cumulative count of any state at 1,553 cases per 100,000 children and Vermont has the lowest at 151, based on the data gathered by the AAP and CHA.

“While much remains unknown about COVID-19, we do know that the spread among children reflects what is happening in the broader communities. A disproportionate number of cases are reported in Black and Hispanic children and in places where there is high poverty. We must work harder to address societal inequities that contribute to these disparities,” Dr. Goza said.

[email protected]

The number of children infected with COVID-19 rose by 7.8% during the week ending Sept. 3, putting the United States over the half-million mark in cumulative child cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

States have reported 513,415 cases of COVID-19 in children since the beginning of the pandemic, with almost 37,000 coming in the last week, the AAP and the CHA said Sept. 8 in the weekly report. That figure includes New York City – the rest of New York State is not reporting ages for COVID-19 patients – as well as Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

“These numbers are a chilling reminder of why we need to take this virus seriously,” AAP President Sara Goza, MD, said in a written statement.

Children now represent 9.8% of the almost 5.3 million cases that have been reported in Americans of all ages. The proportion of child cases has continued to increase as the pandemic has progressed – it was 8.0% as of mid-July and 5.2% in early June, the data show.

“Throughout the summer, surges in the virus have occurred in Southern, Western, and Midwestern states,” the AAP statement said.

The latest AAP/CHA report shows that, from Aug. 27 to Sept. 3, the total number of child cases jumped by 33.7% in South Dakota, more than any other state. North Dakota was next at 22.7%, followed by Hawaii (18.1%), Missouri (16.8%), and Kentucky (16.4%).

“This rapid rise in positive cases occurred over the summer, and as the weather cools, we know people will spend more time indoors,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases. “The goal is to get children back into schools for in-person learning, but in many communities, this is not possible as the virus spreads unchecked.”

The smallest increase over the last week, just 0.9%, came in Rhode Island, with Massachusetts just a bit higher at 1.0%. Also at the low end of the increase scale are Arizona (3.3%) and Louisiana (4.0%), two states that have very high rates of cumulative cases: 1,380 per 100,000 children for Arizona and 1,234 per 100,000 for Louisiana, the report said.

To give those figures some context, Tennessee has the highest cumulative count of any state at 1,553 cases per 100,000 children and Vermont has the lowest at 151, based on the data gathered by the AAP and CHA.

“While much remains unknown about COVID-19, we do know that the spread among children reflects what is happening in the broader communities. A disproportionate number of cases are reported in Black and Hispanic children and in places where there is high poverty. We must work harder to address societal inequities that contribute to these disparities,” Dr. Goza said.

[email protected]

The number of children infected with COVID-19 rose by 7.8% during the week ending Sept. 3, putting the United States over the half-million mark in cumulative child cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

States have reported 513,415 cases of COVID-19 in children since the beginning of the pandemic, with almost 37,000 coming in the last week, the AAP and the CHA said Sept. 8 in the weekly report. That figure includes New York City – the rest of New York State is not reporting ages for COVID-19 patients – as well as Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

“These numbers are a chilling reminder of why we need to take this virus seriously,” AAP President Sara Goza, MD, said in a written statement.

Children now represent 9.8% of the almost 5.3 million cases that have been reported in Americans of all ages. The proportion of child cases has continued to increase as the pandemic has progressed – it was 8.0% as of mid-July and 5.2% in early June, the data show.

“Throughout the summer, surges in the virus have occurred in Southern, Western, and Midwestern states,” the AAP statement said.

The latest AAP/CHA report shows that, from Aug. 27 to Sept. 3, the total number of child cases jumped by 33.7% in South Dakota, more than any other state. North Dakota was next at 22.7%, followed by Hawaii (18.1%), Missouri (16.8%), and Kentucky (16.4%).

“This rapid rise in positive cases occurred over the summer, and as the weather cools, we know people will spend more time indoors,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases. “The goal is to get children back into schools for in-person learning, but in many communities, this is not possible as the virus spreads unchecked.”

The smallest increase over the last week, just 0.9%, came in Rhode Island, with Massachusetts just a bit higher at 1.0%. Also at the low end of the increase scale are Arizona (3.3%) and Louisiana (4.0%), two states that have very high rates of cumulative cases: 1,380 per 100,000 children for Arizona and 1,234 per 100,000 for Louisiana, the report said.

To give those figures some context, Tennessee has the highest cumulative count of any state at 1,553 cases per 100,000 children and Vermont has the lowest at 151, based on the data gathered by the AAP and CHA.

“While much remains unknown about COVID-19, we do know that the spread among children reflects what is happening in the broader communities. A disproportionate number of cases are reported in Black and Hispanic children and in places where there is high poverty. We must work harder to address societal inequities that contribute to these disparities,” Dr. Goza said.

[email protected]

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.