Federal Practitioner

COVID-19 increases the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED) by nearly sixfold, according to data from the first study to investigate the association between ED and COVID-19 in young men in a real-life setting.

The preliminary data also indicated that ED is a marker of increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Men with ED are more than five times more likely to have COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.27).

For men with a history of COVID-19, the odds ratio of developing ED was 5.66. The strength of the association remained after adjusting for factors considered to affect ED.

The study, which was led by Emmanuele A. Jannini, MD, professor of endocrinology and medical sexology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, was published on March 20 in Andrology.
 

‘Mask up to keep it up’

ED can be both a short-term and a long-term complication of COVID-19, Dr. Jannini suggests.

“When offered, men should have the COVID vaccination. It also gives a whole new meaning to wearing the mask – mask up to keep it up,” he said. “It could possibly have the added benefit of preventing sexual dysfunction.”

He points out that older age, diabetes, high body mass index, and smoking increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“These are the same as risk factors for ED. Results of our study agree with the pathophysiological mechanisms linking ED, endothelial dysfunction, and COVID-19. Basically, endothelial dysfunction is common in both conditions [COVID-10 and ED].

“We would like to find some sort of biomarker of endothelial dysfunction post COVID, because it seems that there are many sequelae that coexist for a long time after infection,” added Dr. Jannini. “Asking a patient if they have ED after COVID might provide a measure of systemic wellness.”

Allan Pacey, MD, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield (England), welcomed the research, noting, “This seems to be a well-conducted study. However, at the moment, the relationship is just a correlation, and it might be that some of the comorbidities that increased the men’s chances of getting a significant COVID-19 infection may have also independently increased their chances of erectile dysfunction.

“But the authors offer a plausible mechanism by which COVID-19 may impact directly on erectile function,” agrees Dr. Pacey. However, “There’s more work to be done,” he said. “I’d also argue it’s a good reason for men to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and take the vaccine when it’s offered to them.”

Urologist John Mulhall, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, remarked, “It was a highly preliminary study, but the data are suggestive of a potential link between COVID-19 infection and ED.

“However, it raises enough questions such that further large, more long-term analyses are required to define causation. Future studies assessing testosterone levels and erectile hemodynamics will be needed to provide definite evidence of a causative link,» he stressed.
 

Erectile problems a ‘hallmark’ of systemic endothelial dysfunction

Prior research has suggested that asymptomatic COVID-19 could be associated with subclinical microvascular involvement with long-term cardiovascular effects.

“Indeed, COVID-19 is by all means an endothelial disease, in which systemic manifestations ... can potentially be due to alterations in the endothelial thrombotic/fibrinolytic balance,” emphasized Dr. Jannini. “In addition, endothelial cells express many of the cofactors used by SARS-CoV-2 to invade host cells.

“Erectile dysfunction has often been considered a hallmark of endothelial dysfunction, and as such, a potential association between ED and COVID-19 has also been postulated and underpinned the investigation in this study,” he explained.

The study was predicated on the fact that ED is often considered a clinical marker of impaired overall health status, which often features cardiovascular events at an early age. It aimed to investigate the bidirectional relationship between COVID-19 and ED. It asked whether ED could be a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 and whether having COVID-19 predisposes to developing ED.

“This would possibly suggest that men with ED, due to the underlying conditions which impair erectile response, could also be more susceptible to contracting COVID-19,” said Dr. Jannini.

Data were drawn from the Sex@COVID online survey, which was conducted from April 7 to May 4, 2020, in Italy. The survey included 6,821 participants aged 18 years or older (4,177 women; 2,644 men; mean age, 32.83 ± 11.24 years). Participants were stratified on the basis of marital status and sexual activity during lockdown. From these participants, 985 sexually active men were identified, among whom 25 (2.54%) reported having tested positive for COVID-19. These persons were matched with 75 COVID-19–negative men using propensity score matching in a 1:3 ratio.

The researchers used standardized psychometric tools to measure the effects of lockdown and social distancing on the intrapsychic, relational, and sexual health of the participants.

Erectile function was measured with the International Index of Erectile Function or the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, which are often used in clinical settings. In light of the two-way interaction between sexual activity and psychological well-being, results were adjusted for any influence of anxiety and depression, which were measured with recognized scales for use in patients with a history of COVID-19.

Results showed that the prevalence of ED was significantly higher among men who self-reported a history of COVID-19, compared with a matching COVID-negative population (28% vs. 9.33%; P = .027).

After adjusting for variables that are considered to have a bearing on the development of ED, such as psychological status, age, and BMI, the odds ratio for developing ED after having had COVID-19 was 5.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.50-24.01).

Similarly, after adjusting for age and BMI, men with ED were more likely to have COVID‐19 (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 1.49-20.09).

The authors note that persons who experience “a sudden onset or worsening of ED might also consider precautionary quarantine or nasopharyngeal swab, as COVID‐19 might act as a potential initiating trigger for the onset of erectile impairment, or an aggravating factor for its progression to more severe forms.”

Similarly, patients who have ED “should consider their erectile impairment as a sign of possible underlying conditions that could increase the likelihood of suffering from COVID‐19,” they write.

Dr. Mulhall highlighted several limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, recall bias associated with the use of online questionnaires, and the inclusion of COVID‐19 diagnoses that were based on the response to the survey rather than on testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. In addition, comorbidity data were incomplete, and there was no indication of duration after COVID-19 infection, the severity of COVID-19, or the severity of ED.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pacey is chairman of the advisory committee of the U.K. National External Quality Assurance Schemes in Andrology, editor-in-chief of Human Fertility, trustee of the Progress Educational Trust, and trustee of the British Fertility Society (all unpaid). Dr. Mulhall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 increases the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED) by nearly sixfold, according to data from the first study to investigate the association between ED and COVID-19 in young men in a real-life setting.

The preliminary data also indicated that ED is a marker of increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Men with ED are more than five times more likely to have COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.27).

For men with a history of COVID-19, the odds ratio of developing ED was 5.66. The strength of the association remained after adjusting for factors considered to affect ED.

The study, which was led by Emmanuele A. Jannini, MD, professor of endocrinology and medical sexology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, was published on March 20 in Andrology.
 

‘Mask up to keep it up’

ED can be both a short-term and a long-term complication of COVID-19, Dr. Jannini suggests.

“When offered, men should have the COVID vaccination. It also gives a whole new meaning to wearing the mask – mask up to keep it up,” he said. “It could possibly have the added benefit of preventing sexual dysfunction.”

He points out that older age, diabetes, high body mass index, and smoking increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“These are the same as risk factors for ED. Results of our study agree with the pathophysiological mechanisms linking ED, endothelial dysfunction, and COVID-19. Basically, endothelial dysfunction is common in both conditions [COVID-10 and ED].

“We would like to find some sort of biomarker of endothelial dysfunction post COVID, because it seems that there are many sequelae that coexist for a long time after infection,” added Dr. Jannini. “Asking a patient if they have ED after COVID might provide a measure of systemic wellness.”

Allan Pacey, MD, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield (England), welcomed the research, noting, “This seems to be a well-conducted study. However, at the moment, the relationship is just a correlation, and it might be that some of the comorbidities that increased the men’s chances of getting a significant COVID-19 infection may have also independently increased their chances of erectile dysfunction.

“But the authors offer a plausible mechanism by which COVID-19 may impact directly on erectile function,” agrees Dr. Pacey. However, “There’s more work to be done,” he said. “I’d also argue it’s a good reason for men to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and take the vaccine when it’s offered to them.”

Urologist John Mulhall, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, remarked, “It was a highly preliminary study, but the data are suggestive of a potential link between COVID-19 infection and ED.

“However, it raises enough questions such that further large, more long-term analyses are required to define causation. Future studies assessing testosterone levels and erectile hemodynamics will be needed to provide definite evidence of a causative link,» he stressed.
 

Erectile problems a ‘hallmark’ of systemic endothelial dysfunction

Prior research has suggested that asymptomatic COVID-19 could be associated with subclinical microvascular involvement with long-term cardiovascular effects.

“Indeed, COVID-19 is by all means an endothelial disease, in which systemic manifestations ... can potentially be due to alterations in the endothelial thrombotic/fibrinolytic balance,” emphasized Dr. Jannini. “In addition, endothelial cells express many of the cofactors used by SARS-CoV-2 to invade host cells.

“Erectile dysfunction has often been considered a hallmark of endothelial dysfunction, and as such, a potential association between ED and COVID-19 has also been postulated and underpinned the investigation in this study,” he explained.

The study was predicated on the fact that ED is often considered a clinical marker of impaired overall health status, which often features cardiovascular events at an early age. It aimed to investigate the bidirectional relationship between COVID-19 and ED. It asked whether ED could be a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 and whether having COVID-19 predisposes to developing ED.

“This would possibly suggest that men with ED, due to the underlying conditions which impair erectile response, could also be more susceptible to contracting COVID-19,” said Dr. Jannini.

Data were drawn from the Sex@COVID online survey, which was conducted from April 7 to May 4, 2020, in Italy. The survey included 6,821 participants aged 18 years or older (4,177 women; 2,644 men; mean age, 32.83 ± 11.24 years). Participants were stratified on the basis of marital status and sexual activity during lockdown. From these participants, 985 sexually active men were identified, among whom 25 (2.54%) reported having tested positive for COVID-19. These persons were matched with 75 COVID-19–negative men using propensity score matching in a 1:3 ratio.

The researchers used standardized psychometric tools to measure the effects of lockdown and social distancing on the intrapsychic, relational, and sexual health of the participants.

Erectile function was measured with the International Index of Erectile Function or the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, which are often used in clinical settings. In light of the two-way interaction between sexual activity and psychological well-being, results were adjusted for any influence of anxiety and depression, which were measured with recognized scales for use in patients with a history of COVID-19.

Results showed that the prevalence of ED was significantly higher among men who self-reported a history of COVID-19, compared with a matching COVID-negative population (28% vs. 9.33%; P = .027).

After adjusting for variables that are considered to have a bearing on the development of ED, such as psychological status, age, and BMI, the odds ratio for developing ED after having had COVID-19 was 5.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.50-24.01).

Similarly, after adjusting for age and BMI, men with ED were more likely to have COVID‐19 (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 1.49-20.09).

The authors note that persons who experience “a sudden onset or worsening of ED might also consider precautionary quarantine or nasopharyngeal swab, as COVID‐19 might act as a potential initiating trigger for the onset of erectile impairment, or an aggravating factor for its progression to more severe forms.”

Similarly, patients who have ED “should consider their erectile impairment as a sign of possible underlying conditions that could increase the likelihood of suffering from COVID‐19,” they write.

Dr. Mulhall highlighted several limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, recall bias associated with the use of online questionnaires, and the inclusion of COVID‐19 diagnoses that were based on the response to the survey rather than on testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. In addition, comorbidity data were incomplete, and there was no indication of duration after COVID-19 infection, the severity of COVID-19, or the severity of ED.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pacey is chairman of the advisory committee of the U.K. National External Quality Assurance Schemes in Andrology, editor-in-chief of Human Fertility, trustee of the Progress Educational Trust, and trustee of the British Fertility Society (all unpaid). Dr. Mulhall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 increases the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED) by nearly sixfold, according to data from the first study to investigate the association between ED and COVID-19 in young men in a real-life setting.

The preliminary data also indicated that ED is a marker of increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Men with ED are more than five times more likely to have COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.27).

For men with a history of COVID-19, the odds ratio of developing ED was 5.66. The strength of the association remained after adjusting for factors considered to affect ED.

The study, which was led by Emmanuele A. Jannini, MD, professor of endocrinology and medical sexology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, was published on March 20 in Andrology.
 

‘Mask up to keep it up’

ED can be both a short-term and a long-term complication of COVID-19, Dr. Jannini suggests.

“When offered, men should have the COVID vaccination. It also gives a whole new meaning to wearing the mask – mask up to keep it up,” he said. “It could possibly have the added benefit of preventing sexual dysfunction.”

He points out that older age, diabetes, high body mass index, and smoking increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“These are the same as risk factors for ED. Results of our study agree with the pathophysiological mechanisms linking ED, endothelial dysfunction, and COVID-19. Basically, endothelial dysfunction is common in both conditions [COVID-10 and ED].

“We would like to find some sort of biomarker of endothelial dysfunction post COVID, because it seems that there are many sequelae that coexist for a long time after infection,” added Dr. Jannini. “Asking a patient if they have ED after COVID might provide a measure of systemic wellness.”

Allan Pacey, MD, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield (England), welcomed the research, noting, “This seems to be a well-conducted study. However, at the moment, the relationship is just a correlation, and it might be that some of the comorbidities that increased the men’s chances of getting a significant COVID-19 infection may have also independently increased their chances of erectile dysfunction.

“But the authors offer a plausible mechanism by which COVID-19 may impact directly on erectile function,” agrees Dr. Pacey. However, “There’s more work to be done,” he said. “I’d also argue it’s a good reason for men to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and take the vaccine when it’s offered to them.”

Urologist John Mulhall, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, remarked, “It was a highly preliminary study, but the data are suggestive of a potential link between COVID-19 infection and ED.

“However, it raises enough questions such that further large, more long-term analyses are required to define causation. Future studies assessing testosterone levels and erectile hemodynamics will be needed to provide definite evidence of a causative link,» he stressed.
 

Erectile problems a ‘hallmark’ of systemic endothelial dysfunction

Prior research has suggested that asymptomatic COVID-19 could be associated with subclinical microvascular involvement with long-term cardiovascular effects.

“Indeed, COVID-19 is by all means an endothelial disease, in which systemic manifestations ... can potentially be due to alterations in the endothelial thrombotic/fibrinolytic balance,” emphasized Dr. Jannini. “In addition, endothelial cells express many of the cofactors used by SARS-CoV-2 to invade host cells.

“Erectile dysfunction has often been considered a hallmark of endothelial dysfunction, and as such, a potential association between ED and COVID-19 has also been postulated and underpinned the investigation in this study,” he explained.

The study was predicated on the fact that ED is often considered a clinical marker of impaired overall health status, which often features cardiovascular events at an early age. It aimed to investigate the bidirectional relationship between COVID-19 and ED. It asked whether ED could be a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 and whether having COVID-19 predisposes to developing ED.

“This would possibly suggest that men with ED, due to the underlying conditions which impair erectile response, could also be more susceptible to contracting COVID-19,” said Dr. Jannini.

Data were drawn from the Sex@COVID online survey, which was conducted from April 7 to May 4, 2020, in Italy. The survey included 6,821 participants aged 18 years or older (4,177 women; 2,644 men; mean age, 32.83 ± 11.24 years). Participants were stratified on the basis of marital status and sexual activity during lockdown. From these participants, 985 sexually active men were identified, among whom 25 (2.54%) reported having tested positive for COVID-19. These persons were matched with 75 COVID-19–negative men using propensity score matching in a 1:3 ratio.

The researchers used standardized psychometric tools to measure the effects of lockdown and social distancing on the intrapsychic, relational, and sexual health of the participants.

Erectile function was measured with the International Index of Erectile Function or the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, which are often used in clinical settings. In light of the two-way interaction between sexual activity and psychological well-being, results were adjusted for any influence of anxiety and depression, which were measured with recognized scales for use in patients with a history of COVID-19.

Results showed that the prevalence of ED was significantly higher among men who self-reported a history of COVID-19, compared with a matching COVID-negative population (28% vs. 9.33%; P = .027).

After adjusting for variables that are considered to have a bearing on the development of ED, such as psychological status, age, and BMI, the odds ratio for developing ED after having had COVID-19 was 5.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.50-24.01).

Similarly, after adjusting for age and BMI, men with ED were more likely to have COVID‐19 (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 1.49-20.09).

The authors note that persons who experience “a sudden onset or worsening of ED might also consider precautionary quarantine or nasopharyngeal swab, as COVID‐19 might act as a potential initiating trigger for the onset of erectile impairment, or an aggravating factor for its progression to more severe forms.”

Similarly, patients who have ED “should consider their erectile impairment as a sign of possible underlying conditions that could increase the likelihood of suffering from COVID‐19,” they write.

Dr. Mulhall highlighted several limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, recall bias associated with the use of online questionnaires, and the inclusion of COVID‐19 diagnoses that were based on the response to the survey rather than on testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. In addition, comorbidity data were incomplete, and there was no indication of duration after COVID-19 infection, the severity of COVID-19, or the severity of ED.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pacey is chairman of the advisory committee of the U.K. National External Quality Assurance Schemes in Andrology, editor-in-chief of Human Fertility, trustee of the Progress Educational Trust, and trustee of the British Fertility Society (all unpaid). Dr. Mulhall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following a recent article in the Guardian, the Internet has erupted with tales of periods gone awry. The stress and loss of normalcy over the last year appears to have altered cycles and amplified the premenstrual syndrome (PMS) symptoms many women experience. And after the piece published, many responded on social media with the same sentiment: “So, it’s not just me?”

Women have experienced the loss of their period, excessive and prolonged bleeding, severe mood swings, and irritability, according to the Guardian article. London-based gynecologist Anita Mitra, MBChB, PhD, took an informal survey and found that 65% of 5,677 respondents had noticed a change in their menstrual cycle, the Guardian reported. Another survey, which was posted on medRxiv but hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, found 53% of the 749 respondents had noticed a change in their menstrual cycle, including increased cycle length.

“The pandemic in itself has made more stress for women,” said Karen Carlson, MD, obstetrician and gynecologist at Nebraska Medicine. There’s preliminary evidence that the cycling progesterone and estrogen experienced by reproductive age women actually offers a protective effect against COVID-19, which is good news. But Dr. Carlson said that because they are less likely than men and the elderly to become seriously ill, many women have taken on a lot of the additional responsibilities brought on by the pandemic. They often juggle homeschooling and elder care in addition to the ubiquitous stressors of isolation and concerns around personal health.

“Abnormal bleeding is the most common reason people present to the gynecologist,” Dr. Carlson said in an interview. But in recent months, Dr. Carlson said she’s seen a slight uptick in these issues, and there might have been even more women presenting to their physicians if the pandemic hadn’t also suppressed access to care.

Stress, or rather the cortisol it causes the body to produce, is the culprit for disrupted cycles. It can suppress pituitary hormones that stimulate ovulation. “Some women don’t feel right because they are stuck in the one phase of the cycle,” Dr. Carlson said. They may go months without a period and when they do eventually shed their uterine lining the bleeding goes on for a while.

Some irregularity in a person’s cycle is a normal response to stress and even likely, given the last year. However, bleeding for more than 2 weeks or irregularity for more than 3 months could point to something more serious like an infection or cancer, Dr. Carlson said. Getting a clear history so you know when you need to do blood and hormone workups is critical.
 

Anxiety and depression amplified

For some women it’s not bleeding that’s a problem, rather their PMS has become crippling. And some of their significant others have noticed drastic changes in their mood. In the Guardian article, one woman said she’d gone from feeling withdrawn during her period to being totally unreachable and experiencing intense anxiety.

Maureen Whelihan, MD, a gynecologist in Palm Beach, Fla., said that, for the majority of her patients under 39 years of age, these feelings aren’t a hormone issue, but a stress and neuroreceptor issue. She says she’s seen approximately a 30% increase in mood disorders since the start of the pandemic. Even though many of her patients are cycling relatively normally, their anxiety and depression have been amplified.

Caroline Gurvich, PhD, a neuroscientist at Monash University in Melbourne, attributes this to the loss of typical coping mechanisms. “Having changes to the support system and routine and things that would keep them mentally healthy can exacerbate PMS,” she said in an interview. Dr. Gurvich’s advice is to build routines into the pandemic lifestyle. Normal wake and sleep times, healthy eating, and practices that bring happiness can be “crucial to keeping those PMS systems as controlled as possible.”

Telehealth has made it much easier to access some patients struggling with PMS and offer them the medication or counseling they need, Dr. Carlson said. But that approach doesn’t work for everyone. “I feel like there are a lot of silent sufferers,” she said.

This is where screening practices like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 are so critical, according to Dr. Whelihan, who screens every patient as part of their routine iPad check-in process. Even in a normal year, “I think one-third of gynecology is psychiatry,” she said in an interview. She finds many of the patients struggling with excessive PMS symptoms, both during the pandemic and before, benefit from a child-sized dose of antidepressant. This may allow them to get to a place where they can make impactful routine decisions about exercise or sleep, and then taper off the antidepressant.

It may also be important for clinicians to help patients make the initial connection between their worsening mood or cognitive function and their period. Knowing their feelings of stress, irritability, fogginess, or being withdrawn are linked to their hormone cycle and possibly worsened by the stress of the pandemic can be helpful, Dr. Gurvich said. “If they become conscious of how they are feeling it can be helpful for management of these stressful symptoms,” she said.

Following a recent article in the Guardian, the Internet has erupted with tales of periods gone awry. The stress and loss of normalcy over the last year appears to have altered cycles and amplified the premenstrual syndrome (PMS) symptoms many women experience. And after the piece published, many responded on social media with the same sentiment: “So, it’s not just me?”

Women have experienced the loss of their period, excessive and prolonged bleeding, severe mood swings, and irritability, according to the Guardian article. London-based gynecologist Anita Mitra, MBChB, PhD, took an informal survey and found that 65% of 5,677 respondents had noticed a change in their menstrual cycle, the Guardian reported. Another survey, which was posted on medRxiv but hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, found 53% of the 749 respondents had noticed a change in their menstrual cycle, including increased cycle length.

“The pandemic in itself has made more stress for women,” said Karen Carlson, MD, obstetrician and gynecologist at Nebraska Medicine. There’s preliminary evidence that the cycling progesterone and estrogen experienced by reproductive age women actually offers a protective effect against COVID-19, which is good news. But Dr. Carlson said that because they are less likely than men and the elderly to become seriously ill, many women have taken on a lot of the additional responsibilities brought on by the pandemic. They often juggle homeschooling and elder care in addition to the ubiquitous stressors of isolation and concerns around personal health.

“Abnormal bleeding is the most common reason people present to the gynecologist,” Dr. Carlson said in an interview. But in recent months, Dr. Carlson said she’s seen a slight uptick in these issues, and there might have been even more women presenting to their physicians if the pandemic hadn’t also suppressed access to care.

Stress, or rather the cortisol it causes the body to produce, is the culprit for disrupted cycles. It can suppress pituitary hormones that stimulate ovulation. “Some women don’t feel right because they are stuck in the one phase of the cycle,” Dr. Carlson said. They may go months without a period and when they do eventually shed their uterine lining the bleeding goes on for a while.

Some irregularity in a person’s cycle is a normal response to stress and even likely, given the last year. However, bleeding for more than 2 weeks or irregularity for more than 3 months could point to something more serious like an infection or cancer, Dr. Carlson said. Getting a clear history so you know when you need to do blood and hormone workups is critical.
 

Anxiety and depression amplified

For some women it’s not bleeding that’s a problem, rather their PMS has become crippling. And some of their significant others have noticed drastic changes in their mood. In the Guardian article, one woman said she’d gone from feeling withdrawn during her period to being totally unreachable and experiencing intense anxiety.

Maureen Whelihan, MD, a gynecologist in Palm Beach, Fla., said that, for the majority of her patients under 39 years of age, these feelings aren’t a hormone issue, but a stress and neuroreceptor issue. She says she’s seen approximately a 30% increase in mood disorders since the start of the pandemic. Even though many of her patients are cycling relatively normally, their anxiety and depression have been amplified.

Caroline Gurvich, PhD, a neuroscientist at Monash University in Melbourne, attributes this to the loss of typical coping mechanisms. “Having changes to the support system and routine and things that would keep them mentally healthy can exacerbate PMS,” she said in an interview. Dr. Gurvich’s advice is to build routines into the pandemic lifestyle. Normal wake and sleep times, healthy eating, and practices that bring happiness can be “crucial to keeping those PMS systems as controlled as possible.”

Telehealth has made it much easier to access some patients struggling with PMS and offer them the medication or counseling they need, Dr. Carlson said. But that approach doesn’t work for everyone. “I feel like there are a lot of silent sufferers,” she said.

This is where screening practices like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 are so critical, according to Dr. Whelihan, who screens every patient as part of their routine iPad check-in process. Even in a normal year, “I think one-third of gynecology is psychiatry,” she said in an interview. She finds many of the patients struggling with excessive PMS symptoms, both during the pandemic and before, benefit from a child-sized dose of antidepressant. This may allow them to get to a place where they can make impactful routine decisions about exercise or sleep, and then taper off the antidepressant.

It may also be important for clinicians to help patients make the initial connection between their worsening mood or cognitive function and their period. Knowing their feelings of stress, irritability, fogginess, or being withdrawn are linked to their hormone cycle and possibly worsened by the stress of the pandemic can be helpful, Dr. Gurvich said. “If they become conscious of how they are feeling it can be helpful for management of these stressful symptoms,” she said.

Following a recent article in the Guardian, the Internet has erupted with tales of periods gone awry. The stress and loss of normalcy over the last year appears to have altered cycles and amplified the premenstrual syndrome (PMS) symptoms many women experience. And after the piece published, many responded on social media with the same sentiment: “So, it’s not just me?”

Women have experienced the loss of their period, excessive and prolonged bleeding, severe mood swings, and irritability, according to the Guardian article. London-based gynecologist Anita Mitra, MBChB, PhD, took an informal survey and found that 65% of 5,677 respondents had noticed a change in their menstrual cycle, the Guardian reported. Another survey, which was posted on medRxiv but hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, found 53% of the 749 respondents had noticed a change in their menstrual cycle, including increased cycle length.

“The pandemic in itself has made more stress for women,” said Karen Carlson, MD, obstetrician and gynecologist at Nebraska Medicine. There’s preliminary evidence that the cycling progesterone and estrogen experienced by reproductive age women actually offers a protective effect against COVID-19, which is good news. But Dr. Carlson said that because they are less likely than men and the elderly to become seriously ill, many women have taken on a lot of the additional responsibilities brought on by the pandemic. They often juggle homeschooling and elder care in addition to the ubiquitous stressors of isolation and concerns around personal health.

“Abnormal bleeding is the most common reason people present to the gynecologist,” Dr. Carlson said in an interview. But in recent months, Dr. Carlson said she’s seen a slight uptick in these issues, and there might have been even more women presenting to their physicians if the pandemic hadn’t also suppressed access to care.

Stress, or rather the cortisol it causes the body to produce, is the culprit for disrupted cycles. It can suppress pituitary hormones that stimulate ovulation. “Some women don’t feel right because they are stuck in the one phase of the cycle,” Dr. Carlson said. They may go months without a period and when they do eventually shed their uterine lining the bleeding goes on for a while.

Some irregularity in a person’s cycle is a normal response to stress and even likely, given the last year. However, bleeding for more than 2 weeks or irregularity for more than 3 months could point to something more serious like an infection or cancer, Dr. Carlson said. Getting a clear history so you know when you need to do blood and hormone workups is critical.
 

Anxiety and depression amplified

For some women it’s not bleeding that’s a problem, rather their PMS has become crippling. And some of their significant others have noticed drastic changes in their mood. In the Guardian article, one woman said she’d gone from feeling withdrawn during her period to being totally unreachable and experiencing intense anxiety.

Maureen Whelihan, MD, a gynecologist in Palm Beach, Fla., said that, for the majority of her patients under 39 years of age, these feelings aren’t a hormone issue, but a stress and neuroreceptor issue. She says she’s seen approximately a 30% increase in mood disorders since the start of the pandemic. Even though many of her patients are cycling relatively normally, their anxiety and depression have been amplified.

Caroline Gurvich, PhD, a neuroscientist at Monash University in Melbourne, attributes this to the loss of typical coping mechanisms. “Having changes to the support system and routine and things that would keep them mentally healthy can exacerbate PMS,” she said in an interview. Dr. Gurvich’s advice is to build routines into the pandemic lifestyle. Normal wake and sleep times, healthy eating, and practices that bring happiness can be “crucial to keeping those PMS systems as controlled as possible.”

Telehealth has made it much easier to access some patients struggling with PMS and offer them the medication or counseling they need, Dr. Carlson said. But that approach doesn’t work for everyone. “I feel like there are a lot of silent sufferers,” she said.

This is where screening practices like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 are so critical, according to Dr. Whelihan, who screens every patient as part of their routine iPad check-in process. Even in a normal year, “I think one-third of gynecology is psychiatry,” she said in an interview. She finds many of the patients struggling with excessive PMS symptoms, both during the pandemic and before, benefit from a child-sized dose of antidepressant. This may allow them to get to a place where they can make impactful routine decisions about exercise or sleep, and then taper off the antidepressant.

It may also be important for clinicians to help patients make the initial connection between their worsening mood or cognitive function and their period. Knowing their feelings of stress, irritability, fogginess, or being withdrawn are linked to their hormone cycle and possibly worsened by the stress of the pandemic can be helpful, Dr. Gurvich said. “If they become conscious of how they are feeling it can be helpful for management of these stressful symptoms,” she said.

Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

NoSystem images/Getty Images

“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.

Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.

A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.

In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.

After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.

Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’

“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
 

Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen

“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”

Courtesy UAB Photo

He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.

“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
 

Debating the cause of weakened immune responses

“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.

“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?

“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”

That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”

The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

NoSystem images/Getty Images

“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.

Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.

A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.

In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.

After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.

Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’

“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
 

Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen

“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”

Courtesy UAB Photo

He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.

“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
 

Debating the cause of weakened immune responses

“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.

“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?

“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”

That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”

The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

NoSystem images/Getty Images

“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.

Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.

A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.

In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.

After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.

Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’

“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
 

Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen

“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”

Courtesy UAB Photo

He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.

“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
 

Debating the cause of weakened immune responses

“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.

“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?

“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”

That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”

The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death among the over 16,000 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial.

Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.

After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.

Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.

It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.

[email protected]

Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death among the over 16,000 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial.

Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.

After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.

Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.

It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.

[email protected]

Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death among the over 16,000 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial.

Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.

After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.

Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.

It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.

[email protected]

Exhaustion, numbness, dissociation, and most notably, anger are my emotional response when viewing the video of George Floyd’s death. The homicide trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin activates the shared stress of those who experienced intergenerational trauma and the legacy of racism in the United States of America.

On May 25, 2020, Mr. Floyd died after Derek Chauvin used a lethal maneuver and placed his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. Mr. Floyd has died physically, but his death is replayed through high-definition social media daily, if not hourly, as I write this article and think of the generational legacy of trauma that African Americans must cope with on an everyday basis. I struggle daily to explain this legacy to my daughters, students, residents, and colleagues. I hope to share with you some of my perspectives on the current trial and give you some insight as to how my training and personal life experience have affected my views on police brutality and the use of lethal force toward African American men.

My earliest recollection of public video-recorded images of police brutality occurred when Rodney King was beaten and assaulted by the Los Angeles Police Department on March 3, 1991. At that time, I was a senior in high school, and the world was different. My clear expectation was that any attempt to resist police arrest would be met with overwhelming and potentially lethal force. This was simply a matter of my daily reality, so, while witnessing the assault of Mr. King, the 17-year-old child didn’t expect much, if any, real change to come about in regard to police brutality. At that time, my mother kept me focused on one singular goal – becoming a physician – and protected me as best she could from the effects of intergenerational trauma woven into the African American experience.

The issue of police brutality and police-involved deaths has been recognized as a significant public health concern for some time. Over the 3 decades since the assault on Mr. King, several researchers have examined these issues. A review of all the research is beyond the scope of this opinion piece. Still, I will highlight a study that I believe illustrates some conclusions scholars have come to regarding police use of lethal force and subsequent mortality in African American men. A recent study by Frank Edwards, PhD, and colleagues, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that Black men were 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police over their life course than White men.

The researchers also developed predictive models that about 1 in 1,000 Black men and boys will be killed by police over their life course, and that among all age groups Black men and boys face the highest lifetime risk. The authors concluded that “Our analysis shows that the risk of being killed by police is jointly patterned by one’s race, gender, and age. Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men, and young men of color face an exceptionally high risk of being killed by police. Inequalities in risk are pronounced throughout the life course. This study reinforces calls to treat police violence as a public health issue.”

Research such as this helps validate on a visceral level what I already was taught: “As a Black male, encounters with police can quickly become deadly, and you must remain calm, or you could die.” This thought process informed much of my thinking whenever I heard about a Black male being fatally shot by police. My first response was to ask, “Was he resisting arrest?” At this time, my naive impression was that “if you don’t resist or conflict, you’ll live.” It wasn’t until my training in psychiatry that I realized that the duty to calm, support, and most importantly, protect was the responsibility of the person who is given the trust of the public. As a psychiatrist, I am humbled by the trust the public places in physicians to restrain patients and take part in their involuntary hospitalizations. Over the years, I learned from my attending physicians, colleagues in security, social work, nursing, assertive community treatment (ACT) teams, and many other allied health professions that the responsibility to show restraint, calm, and compassion lies with those who have the power and trust of the public.

Mostly, I learned from my patients. They taught me to meet distress with compassion and humanity and not simply with force. With those lessons in mind, I now fast forward to July 17, 2014, and the death of Eric Garner. On July 17, New York Police Department officers approached Mr. Garner on the suspicion that he was selling loose cigarettes. Amid this encounter, Mr. Garner was subjected to a chokehold, and his face was pinned to the ground while he can be heard saying, “I can’t breathe.” At this time in my professional career, I had just become a dean of student affairs at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences. I can still remember the response of my minority students, and the sense of pain and anguish they felt watching the video of a chokehold being used on a man stating, “I can’t breathe.” At this point, my training would not allow me to see this as anything other than an unnecessary use of lethal force that would subsequently be ruled a homicide. I hoped that we as a nation had reached a “reckoning “ because of Mr. Garner’s death and Michael Brown Jr.’s subsequent death in Ferguson, Mo., in St. Louis County, on Aug. 9, 2014. I hoped we were ready to finally address police brutality and excessive use of force that had disproportionately affected Black men. I was utterly wrong. Black men such as Alton Sterling, Jamar Clark, and many others would die in fatal police encounters. So would Tamir Rice, who was 12 years old when he was shot and killed by a police officer.

This brings me back to the death of Mr. Floyd. As I listened to the witnesses’ testimony, it triggered an emotional response from sadness, fear, shock, but mostly anger. Some would consider it progress that the Minneapolis Police Department’s top homicide detective testified that kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck after he had been restrained was “unnecessary.” The officer stated, “If your knee is on someone’s neck, that could kill him.” While I acknowledge this is a form of progress, we must ultimately address the other “substantial causal factor of death” for Mr. Floyd. Namely, the systemic racism present in a criminal justice system in the form of policies and procedures that allow for continued racial disparities and inequities.

There will be coverage of the court proceedings and a detailed dissection of the legal arguments. Questions regarding Mr. Floyd’s physical health and struggle with opiate use disorder will be raised by the defense. The debate about the substantial causal factor will be played out in the court and the media. Ultimately, we, as health professionals, need to ask ourselves, “Who has the power and the duty to do no harm?”

Dr. Norris is associate dean of student affairs and administration at George Washington University, Washington. He has no disclosures.

Exhaustion, numbness, dissociation, and most notably, anger are my emotional response when viewing the video of George Floyd’s death. The homicide trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin activates the shared stress of those who experienced intergenerational trauma and the legacy of racism in the United States of America.

On May 25, 2020, Mr. Floyd died after Derek Chauvin used a lethal maneuver and placed his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. Mr. Floyd has died physically, but his death is replayed through high-definition social media daily, if not hourly, as I write this article and think of the generational legacy of trauma that African Americans must cope with on an everyday basis. I struggle daily to explain this legacy to my daughters, students, residents, and colleagues. I hope to share with you some of my perspectives on the current trial and give you some insight as to how my training and personal life experience have affected my views on police brutality and the use of lethal force toward African American men.

My earliest recollection of public video-recorded images of police brutality occurred when Rodney King was beaten and assaulted by the Los Angeles Police Department on March 3, 1991. At that time, I was a senior in high school, and the world was different. My clear expectation was that any attempt to resist police arrest would be met with overwhelming and potentially lethal force. This was simply a matter of my daily reality, so, while witnessing the assault of Mr. King, the 17-year-old child didn’t expect much, if any, real change to come about in regard to police brutality. At that time, my mother kept me focused on one singular goal – becoming a physician – and protected me as best she could from the effects of intergenerational trauma woven into the African American experience.

The issue of police brutality and police-involved deaths has been recognized as a significant public health concern for some time. Over the 3 decades since the assault on Mr. King, several researchers have examined these issues. A review of all the research is beyond the scope of this opinion piece. Still, I will highlight a study that I believe illustrates some conclusions scholars have come to regarding police use of lethal force and subsequent mortality in African American men. A recent study by Frank Edwards, PhD, and colleagues, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that Black men were 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police over their life course than White men.

The researchers also developed predictive models that about 1 in 1,000 Black men and boys will be killed by police over their life course, and that among all age groups Black men and boys face the highest lifetime risk. The authors concluded that “Our analysis shows that the risk of being killed by police is jointly patterned by one’s race, gender, and age. Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men, and young men of color face an exceptionally high risk of being killed by police. Inequalities in risk are pronounced throughout the life course. This study reinforces calls to treat police violence as a public health issue.”

Research such as this helps validate on a visceral level what I already was taught: “As a Black male, encounters with police can quickly become deadly, and you must remain calm, or you could die.” This thought process informed much of my thinking whenever I heard about a Black male being fatally shot by police. My first response was to ask, “Was he resisting arrest?” At this time, my naive impression was that “if you don’t resist or conflict, you’ll live.” It wasn’t until my training in psychiatry that I realized that the duty to calm, support, and most importantly, protect was the responsibility of the person who is given the trust of the public. As a psychiatrist, I am humbled by the trust the public places in physicians to restrain patients and take part in their involuntary hospitalizations. Over the years, I learned from my attending physicians, colleagues in security, social work, nursing, assertive community treatment (ACT) teams, and many other allied health professions that the responsibility to show restraint, calm, and compassion lies with those who have the power and trust of the public.

Mostly, I learned from my patients. They taught me to meet distress with compassion and humanity and not simply with force. With those lessons in mind, I now fast forward to July 17, 2014, and the death of Eric Garner. On July 17, New York Police Department officers approached Mr. Garner on the suspicion that he was selling loose cigarettes. Amid this encounter, Mr. Garner was subjected to a chokehold, and his face was pinned to the ground while he can be heard saying, “I can’t breathe.” At this time in my professional career, I had just become a dean of student affairs at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences. I can still remember the response of my minority students, and the sense of pain and anguish they felt watching the video of a chokehold being used on a man stating, “I can’t breathe.” At this point, my training would not allow me to see this as anything other than an unnecessary use of lethal force that would subsequently be ruled a homicide. I hoped that we as a nation had reached a “reckoning “ because of Mr. Garner’s death and Michael Brown Jr.’s subsequent death in Ferguson, Mo., in St. Louis County, on Aug. 9, 2014. I hoped we were ready to finally address police brutality and excessive use of force that had disproportionately affected Black men. I was utterly wrong. Black men such as Alton Sterling, Jamar Clark, and many others would die in fatal police encounters. So would Tamir Rice, who was 12 years old when he was shot and killed by a police officer.

This brings me back to the death of Mr. Floyd. As I listened to the witnesses’ testimony, it triggered an emotional response from sadness, fear, shock, but mostly anger. Some would consider it progress that the Minneapolis Police Department’s top homicide detective testified that kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck after he had been restrained was “unnecessary.” The officer stated, “If your knee is on someone’s neck, that could kill him.” While I acknowledge this is a form of progress, we must ultimately address the other “substantial causal factor of death” for Mr. Floyd. Namely, the systemic racism present in a criminal justice system in the form of policies and procedures that allow for continued racial disparities and inequities.

There will be coverage of the court proceedings and a detailed dissection of the legal arguments. Questions regarding Mr. Floyd’s physical health and struggle with opiate use disorder will be raised by the defense. The debate about the substantial causal factor will be played out in the court and the media. Ultimately, we, as health professionals, need to ask ourselves, “Who has the power and the duty to do no harm?”

Dr. Norris is associate dean of student affairs and administration at George Washington University, Washington. He has no disclosures.

Exhaustion, numbness, dissociation, and most notably, anger are my emotional response when viewing the video of George Floyd’s death. The homicide trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin activates the shared stress of those who experienced intergenerational trauma and the legacy of racism in the United States of America.

On May 25, 2020, Mr. Floyd died after Derek Chauvin used a lethal maneuver and placed his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. Mr. Floyd has died physically, but his death is replayed through high-definition social media daily, if not hourly, as I write this article and think of the generational legacy of trauma that African Americans must cope with on an everyday basis. I struggle daily to explain this legacy to my daughters, students, residents, and colleagues. I hope to share with you some of my perspectives on the current trial and give you some insight as to how my training and personal life experience have affected my views on police brutality and the use of lethal force toward African American men.

My earliest recollection of public video-recorded images of police brutality occurred when Rodney King was beaten and assaulted by the Los Angeles Police Department on March 3, 1991. At that time, I was a senior in high school, and the world was different. My clear expectation was that any attempt to resist police arrest would be met with overwhelming and potentially lethal force. This was simply a matter of my daily reality, so, while witnessing the assault of Mr. King, the 17-year-old child didn’t expect much, if any, real change to come about in regard to police brutality. At that time, my mother kept me focused on one singular goal – becoming a physician – and protected me as best she could from the effects of intergenerational trauma woven into the African American experience.

The issue of police brutality and police-involved deaths has been recognized as a significant public health concern for some time. Over the 3 decades since the assault on Mr. King, several researchers have examined these issues. A review of all the research is beyond the scope of this opinion piece. Still, I will highlight a study that I believe illustrates some conclusions scholars have come to regarding police use of lethal force and subsequent mortality in African American men. A recent study by Frank Edwards, PhD, and colleagues, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that Black men were 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police over their life course than White men.

The researchers also developed predictive models that about 1 in 1,000 Black men and boys will be killed by police over their life course, and that among all age groups Black men and boys face the highest lifetime risk. The authors concluded that “Our analysis shows that the risk of being killed by police is jointly patterned by one’s race, gender, and age. Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men, and young men of color face an exceptionally high risk of being killed by police. Inequalities in risk are pronounced throughout the life course. This study reinforces calls to treat police violence as a public health issue.”

Research such as this helps validate on a visceral level what I already was taught: “As a Black male, encounters with police can quickly become deadly, and you must remain calm, or you could die.” This thought process informed much of my thinking whenever I heard about a Black male being fatally shot by police. My first response was to ask, “Was he resisting arrest?” At this time, my naive impression was that “if you don’t resist or conflict, you’ll live.” It wasn’t until my training in psychiatry that I realized that the duty to calm, support, and most importantly, protect was the responsibility of the person who is given the trust of the public. As a psychiatrist, I am humbled by the trust the public places in physicians to restrain patients and take part in their involuntary hospitalizations. Over the years, I learned from my attending physicians, colleagues in security, social work, nursing, assertive community treatment (ACT) teams, and many other allied health professions that the responsibility to show restraint, calm, and compassion lies with those who have the power and trust of the public.

Mostly, I learned from my patients. They taught me to meet distress with compassion and humanity and not simply with force. With those lessons in mind, I now fast forward to July 17, 2014, and the death of Eric Garner. On July 17, New York Police Department officers approached Mr. Garner on the suspicion that he was selling loose cigarettes. Amid this encounter, Mr. Garner was subjected to a chokehold, and his face was pinned to the ground while he can be heard saying, “I can’t breathe.” At this time in my professional career, I had just become a dean of student affairs at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences. I can still remember the response of my minority students, and the sense of pain and anguish they felt watching the video of a chokehold being used on a man stating, “I can’t breathe.” At this point, my training would not allow me to see this as anything other than an unnecessary use of lethal force that would subsequently be ruled a homicide. I hoped that we as a nation had reached a “reckoning “ because of Mr. Garner’s death and Michael Brown Jr.’s subsequent death in Ferguson, Mo., in St. Louis County, on Aug. 9, 2014. I hoped we were ready to finally address police brutality and excessive use of force that had disproportionately affected Black men. I was utterly wrong. Black men such as Alton Sterling, Jamar Clark, and many others would die in fatal police encounters. So would Tamir Rice, who was 12 years old when he was shot and killed by a police officer.

This brings me back to the death of Mr. Floyd. As I listened to the witnesses’ testimony, it triggered an emotional response from sadness, fear, shock, but mostly anger. Some would consider it progress that the Minneapolis Police Department’s top homicide detective testified that kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck after he had been restrained was “unnecessary.” The officer stated, “If your knee is on someone’s neck, that could kill him.” While I acknowledge this is a form of progress, we must ultimately address the other “substantial causal factor of death” for Mr. Floyd. Namely, the systemic racism present in a criminal justice system in the form of policies and procedures that allow for continued racial disparities and inequities.

There will be coverage of the court proceedings and a detailed dissection of the legal arguments. Questions regarding Mr. Floyd’s physical health and struggle with opiate use disorder will be raised by the defense. The debate about the substantial causal factor will be played out in the court and the media. Ultimately, we, as health professionals, need to ask ourselves, “Who has the power and the duty to do no harm?”

Dr. Norris is associate dean of student affairs and administration at George Washington University, Washington. He has no disclosures.

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

Public health officials in the Midwest and Northeast are sounding the alarm about steep new increases in COVID-19 cases in children.
 

South_agency/Getty Images

The increases seem to be driven by greater circulation of more contagious variants, just as children and teens have returned to in-person activities such as sports, parties, and classes.

“I can just tell you from my 46 years in the business, I’ve never seen dynamic transmission in kids like we’re seeing right now, younger kids,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

In earlier surges, children – especially younger children – played only minor roles in transmitting the infection. When they were diagnosed with COVID-19, their symptoms tended to be mild or even absent, and for reasons that aren’t well understood, they haven’t usually been the first cases in households or clusters. 

Now, as more SARS-CoV-2 variants have begun to dominate, and seniors gain protection from vaccines, that pattern may be changing. Infectious disease experts are watching to see if COVID-19 will start to spread in a pattern more similar to influenza, with children becoming infected first and bringing the infection home to their parents.
 

Michigan sees jump in cases

Governors in some hard-hit states are pleading with a pandemic-weary public to keep up mask-wearing and social distancing and avoid unnecessary travel and large gatherings in order to protect in-person classes. 

In Michigan, many schools reopened and youth sports resumed just as the more contagious B.1.1.7 variant spread widely. There, cases are rising among all age groups, but the largest number of new COVID-19 cases is among children aged 10-19, the first time that’s happened since the start of the pandemic.

Over the month of March, incidence in this age group had more than doubled in the state. Cases among younger children – infants through 9-year-olds – are also going up, increasing by more than 230% since Feb. 19, according to data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. 

The increases have prompted some schools to pause in-person learning for a time after spring break to slow transmission, according to Natasha Bagdasarian, MD, senior public health physician with the Michigan health department in Ann Arbor.

In Minnesota, on a recent call with reporters, Ruth Lynfield, MD, state epidemiologist, said the B.1.1.7 variant, which has rapidly risen in the state, has a higher attack rate among children than that of earlier versions of the virus, meaning they’re more likely to be infected when exposed.

“We certainly get the sense that youth are what we might refer to as the leading edge of the spread of variants,” she said.

Dr. Lynfield said they were tracking cases spreading through youth sports, classrooms, and daycare centers.

In Massachusetts, the largest number of new COVID-19 infections in the last 2 weeks of March was among children and teens. Massachusetts has the fifth-highest number of recorded B.1.1.7 cases in the United States, according to CDC data.

Although most COVID-19 cases in children and teens are mild, the disease can be severe for those who have underlying medical conditions. Even in healthy children, it can trigger a serious postviral syndrome called MIS-C that requires hospitalization. 

Emerging studies show that children, like adults, can develop the lingering symptoms of long COVID-19. Recent data from the United Kingdom show 10%-15% of children younger than 16 infected with COVID-19 still had at least one symptom 5 weeks later.

Dr. Osterholm said it remains to be seen whether more cases in children will also mean a rise in more serious outcomes for children, as it has in Europe and Israel.

In Israel, the B.1.1.7 variant arrived at the end of December and became dominant in January. By the end of January, Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem had four patients in its newly opened pediatric COVID-19 ICU unit. They ranged in age from 13 days to 2 years.

By early February, the Ministry of Health warned the country’s doctors to prepare for an “imminent upward trend” in pediatric COVID-19 cases. They notified hospitals to be ready to open more ICU beds for children with COVID-19, according to Cyrille Cohen, PhD, head of the laboratory of immunotherapy at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.

On March 31, French President Emmanuel Macron ordered France into its third national lockdown and closed schools for 3 weeks to try to hold off a third wave of COVID-19. President Macron had been a staunch defender of keeping schools open, but said the closure was necessary. 

“It is the best solution to slow down the virus,” he said, according to Reuters.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently announced a new lockdown for Germany as the spread of the variants has led to rising cases there.

“I think what we’re seeing here is this is going to play out over the country,” said Dr. Osterholm. “Before this time, we didn’t see major transmission in younger kids particularly K through eighth grade, and now we’re seeing that happening with many school outbreaks, particularly in the Northeast and in the Midwest.” He added that it will spread through southern states as well.
 

Fall surge all over again

“It’s starting to feel an awful lot like déjà vu, where the hospitalization numbers, the positivity rate, all of the metrics that we track are trending up significantly, and it’s feeling like the fall surge,” said Brian Peters, CEO of the Michigan Hospital Association. “It’s feeling in many ways like the initial surge a year ago.”

Mr. Peters said that in January and February, COVID-19 hospitalizations in Michigan were less than 1,000 a day. Recently, he said, there were 2,558 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in Michigan.

About half of adults aged 65 and older have been fully vaccinated in Michigan. That’s led to a dramatic drop in cases and hospitalizations among seniors, who are at highest risk of death. At the same time, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and health officials with the Biden administration have encouraged schools to reopen for in-person learning, and extracurricular activities have largely resumed.

The same circumstances – students in classrooms, combined with the arrival of the variants – resulted in COVID-19 cases caused by the B.1.1.7 variant increasing  among younger age groups in the United Kingdom. 

When schools were locked down again, however, cases caused by variant and wild type viruses both dropped in children, suggesting that there wasn’t anything that made B.1.1.7 extra risky for children, but that the strain is more contagious for everyone. Sports, extracurricular activities, and classrooms offered the virus plenty of opportunities to spread.

In Michigan, Dr. Bagdasarian said the outbreaks in children started with winter sports.

“Not necessarily transmission on the field, but we’re really talking about social gatherings that were happening in and around sports,” like the pizza party to celebrate a team win, she said, “and I think those social gatherings were a big driver.”

“Outbreaks are trickling over into teams and trickling over into schools, which is exactly what we want to avoid,” she added.

Thus far, Michigan has been reserving vaccine doses for older adults but will open eligibility to anyone age 16 and older starting on April 6.

Until younger age groups can be vaccinated, Mr. Peters said people need to continue to be careful.

“We see people letting their guard down and it’s to be expected,” Mr. Peters said. “People have COVID fatigue, and they are eager to get together with their friends. We’re not out of the woods yet.”