Federal Practitioner

Since 2008, suicide has ranked as the tenth leading cause of death for all ages in the US, with rates of suicide continuing to rise.^1-3 Suicide is even more urgent to address in veteran populations. The age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate in 2017 was more than 1.5 times greater for veterans than it was for nonveteran adults.² Of importance, rates of suicide are increasing at a faster rate in veterans who are not connected to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care.^4,5 These at-risk veterans include individuals who are eligible for VHA care yet have not had a VHA appointment within the year before death; veterans who may be ineligible to receive VHA care due to complex rules set by legislation; and veterans who are eligible but not enrolled in VHA care. Notably, between 2005 and 2016, the number of veterans not enrolled in VHA care rose more quickly than did the number of veterans enrolled in VHA care.^5,6 Thus, to impact the high veteran suicide rates, an emergent challenge for VHA is to prevent suicide among unenrolled veterans and veterans receiving community care, while continuing to increase access to mental health services for veterans enrolled in VHA health care.

In response to the high rates of veteran suicide deaths, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed a broad, multicomponent suicide prevention program that is unparalleled in private US health care systems.^4,7 Suicide prevention efforts are led and implemented by both the VHA National Center for Patient Safety and the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Program components are numerous and multifaceted, falling within the broad promotion and prevention strategies outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).^1,8-11 The NAM continuum of prevention model encompassing multiple strategies is also referred to as the Universal, Selective, Indicated (USI) Model.^7,8,10 The VHA suicide prevention program contains a wide spread of program components, making it both comprehensive and innovative (Table 1).

Although significant momentum and progress has been made within the VHA, policy set by legislation has historically limited access to VHA health care services to VHA-eligible veterans. This is particularly concerning given the rising suicide rates among veterans not engaged in VHA care.² Adding to this complexity, recent legislation has increased veterans’ access to non-VHA health care, in addition to their existing access through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs.^12-14 Best practices for suicide prevention are not often implemented in the private sector; thus, these systems are ill prepared to adequately meet the suicide prevention care needs of veterans.^4,15-18 Furthermore, VHA and non-VHA services generally are not well coordinated, and private sector health care providers (HCPs) are not required to complete a commensurate level of suicide prevention training as are VHA HCPs.^16-18 Most non-VHA HCPs do not receive military cultural competence training.¹⁹ These issues create a significant gap in suicide prevention services and may contribute to the increases in suicide rates in veterans who do not receive VHA care. Thus, changes in policy to increase access through private sector care may have paradoxical effects on veteran suicide deaths. To impact the veteran suicide rate, VHA must develop and disseminate best practices for veterans who use non-VHA services.

A Roadmap to Suicide Prevention

There is significant momentum at the federal level regarding this issue. The President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End the National Tragedy of Suicide (Executive Order 13,861) directs the VHA to work closely with community organizations to improve veteran suicide prevention.²⁰ The VHA and partners, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), are bridging this gap with collaborative efforts that increase suicide prevention resources for veterans living in the community through programs such as the Governor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. These programs intend to empower communities to develop statewide, strategic action plans to prevent veteran suicide.^7,21-24

In addition to partnerships, VHA has built other aspects of outreach and intervention into its programming. A key VHA initiative is to “know all veterans” by committing to identifying and reaching out to all veterans who may be at risk for suicide.²² The VHA has committed to offering “emergency stabilization care for former service members who present at the facility with an emergent mental health need” regardless of eligibility.²⁵ The intent is to provide temporary emergent mental health care to veterans who are otherwise ineligible for care, such as those who were discharged under other-than-honorable conditions while the VHA determines eligibility status.²⁶ However, veterans must meet certain criteria, and there is a limit on services.

Although services are being expanded to reach veterans who do not access VHA health care, how to best implement these new directives with regard to suicide prevention is unclear. Strategic development and innovations to expand suicide prevention care to veterans outside the current reach of VHA are desperately needed.

Program Overview 

VHA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry-Suicide Prevention Collaborative (PSCI-SPC), funded by the VHA National Center for Patient Safety, aims to help fill the gap in community-based suicide prevention for veterans. PSCI-SPC is located within the VHA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center in Aurora, Colorado. The overarching mission of PSCI-SPC is to develop, implement, and evaluate practical solutions to reduce suicide among veterans not receiving VHA care. PSCI-SPC serves as a national clinical innovation and dissemination center for best practices in suicide prevention for organizations that serve veterans who receive care in the community. PSCI-SPC creates products to support dissemination of these practices to other VAMCs and works to ensure these programs are sustainable. PSCI-SPC focuses on 3 primary objectives. All PSCI-SPC projects are currently underway.

Objective 1: Growing a Community Learning Collaborative

Acknowledging that nearly two-thirds of veterans who die by suicide do not use VHA services, PSCI-SPC aims to reduce suicide among all veterans by expanding the reach of best practices for suicide prevention to veterans who receive myriad services in the community.²⁷ Community organizations are defined here as organizations that may in some way serve, interact with, or work with veterans, and/or employ veterans. Examples include non-VHA health care systems, public services such as police and fire departments, nonprofit organizations, mental health clinics, and veterans’ courts. As veterans increasingly seek health care and other services within their communities, the success of suicide prevention will be influenced by the capability of non-VHA public and private organizations. Objective 1, therefore, seeks to develop a VHA-community collaborative that can be leveraged to improve systems of suicide prevention.

Current programs in the VHA have focused on implementation of suicide prevention awareness and prevention education campaigns instead of grassroots partnerships that are intended to be sustainable. Additionally, these programs typically lack the capacity and systems to sustain numerous meaningful community partnerships. Traditionally, community organizations have been hesitant to partner with government agencies, such as the VHA, due to histories of institutional mistrust and bureaucracy.²⁸

The PSCI-SPC model for developing a VHA-community collaborative partnership draws from the tradition of community-based participatory research. The best community-based participatory research practices are to build on strengths and resources within the local community; develop collaborative, equitable partnerships that involve an empowering and power-sharing process; foster colearning, heuristics, and capacity building among partners; and focus on systems development using an iterative process. These practices also are consistent with the literature on learning collaboratives.^29-31

The premise for a learning collaborative is to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice in health care.³¹ Figure 1 depicts how this collaborative was developed, and how it supports Objectives 2 and 3. To achieve Objective 1, we developed a VHA-learning collaborative of 13 influential community partners in the Denver and Colorado Springs region of Colorado. The VHA team consists of a learning collaborative leader, a program manager, and a program support assistant. The principal investigator attends and contributes to all meetings. Learning collaborative partners include a university psychology clinic that focuses on veterans’ care, 3 veterans service organizations, a mental health private practice, a university school of nursing, a community mental health center, veterans’ courts, and 5 city departments.

Objective 2: Implementation Toolkit

The second PSCI-SPC objective is to develop a toolkit for the implementation of best practices within a VHA-community suicide prevention learning collaborative. Lessons from the development of a successful suicide prevention learning collaborative will be shared through an online guide that other VHA facilities can use to support similar collaborative efforts within their communities. The toolkit will be disseminated across the VHA to assist suicide prevention coordinators and other staff in developing a suicide prevention learning collaborative at their facilities.

PSCI-SPC uses the Zero Suicide framework and the VA/US Department of Defense (DoD) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Patients at Risk for Suicide as models for preventing suicide in veterans not enrolled in VHA care.^11,32 This implementation toolkit focuses on how to implement suicide prevention best practices into organizations that serve veterans. This toolkit differs from clinical practice guidelines in that it focuses on implementation strategies to promote success and effectively address challenges.

In order to provide a menu of available options for the learning collaborative and resulting toolkit, PSCI-SPC uses a logic model to compare the components of the VHA suicide prevention program, as well as other similar veteran and military suicide prevention programs.^{7,12,14,21,33,34} These programs are categorized into 2 types of prevention frameworks, the USI model as described above, and the SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework (Table 2).³⁵ The SAMHSA framework was designed to promote mental health and prevent substance abuse, yet the derived classification is also applicable to suicide prevention programs.³⁵ The results of the logic model comparison form the basis of the best practice interventions for the learning collaborative and initial toolkit. In addition to the best practice interventions, the toolkit consists of documents describing how to develop a veteran suicide prevention learning collaborative, as well as tools for learning collaborative members. Current tool development includes workbooks to guide collaborative members through the implementation process, guides for community organizations in implementing suicide prevention screening and risk assessment, a standard operating procedure for suicide prevention in a veterans court, and peer support training for veteran suicide prevention.

Objective 3: High-Risk Veterans Not Receiving VHA Care

Although veterans not receiving VHA care account for a number of veteran deaths by suicide, we are not aware of any current VHA programs that provide temporary psychotherapy and intensive case management to at-risk veterans ineligible for VHA care who are in need of immediate care while an appropriate permanent community placement is identified. In the current system, veterans in the community can present to VHA suicide prevention services through several different systems, including referrals to VHA and the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL). However, a portion of VCL calls are from veterans whose VHA eligibility is unknown or who are ineligible for services. If veterans are at imminent risk for suicide, emergency care is coordinated for them. However, if veterans are not at imminent suicide risk they are referred to the local suicide prevention coordinator and instructed to independently work toward determining their VHA eligibility.

It is currently unknown how many veterans follow through with these instructions. Nonetheless, if veterans are deemed eligible, they may present to VHA to obtain a same-day appointment. If not eligible, a suicide prevention coordinator may give them the phone number of a community referral. However, this practice is not standardized across VA medical centers, and the provided resources are up to the suicide prevention coordinator to research. Additionally, when a VHA suicide prevention coordinator leaves the position, knowledge of these community resources and rapport with community HCPs are often lost, leaving the next coordinator to develop these again, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of limited resources. It is also unknown how many veterans complete this contact and receive evidence-based treatment following referral. This is a complex system to navigate, particularly when at risk for suicide and in need of immediate but not emergency services.

Suicide prevention in such circumstances may be improved by adapting current suicide prevention practices, including evidence-based interventions, and the new VHA intensive case management program,^11,36 within a Zero Suicide framework. PSCI-SPC has developed a brief intervention to transition ineligible veterans to permanent community treatment and provide them with additional resources to meet their varied needs. The brief 1 to 3 session intervention combines practices from brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) for suicide prevention, crisis response planning (CRP), and intensive case management within a Zero Suicide framework. Both the 2019 VA/DoD suicide prevention clinical practice guidelines and Zero Suicide recommend using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions for suicide prevention.^11,32 These interventions are packaged into a single intervention delivered by a PSCI-SPC therapist, typically a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed clinical psychologist, or an unlicensed psychologist under the supervision of a licensed clinical psychologist.

BCBT is one type of CBT that has shown initial efficacy in reducing suicide attempts.³⁷ BCBT reduces the risk for suicide attempts both at the conclusion of treatment and at 24-month follow-up.³⁷ BCBT is boiled down to its most essential components so it can be delivered in a distilled format. An essential element of BCBT that will remain is the CRP. A CRP^11,37,38 entails collaboratively identifying effective, appropriate coping strategies and specific individuals to contact during a crisis. CRPs demonstrated efficacy as a stand-alone intervention to existing suicide prevention methods in a randomized clinical trial, such that individuals who received CRP had faster reductions in suicidal ideation and were 76% less likely to make a suicide attempt during the 6-month follow-up period.³⁹ These results demonstrate that use of a CRP is connected to a decrease in suicidal behavior among suicidal patients.

The VHA has developed and is piloting a new initiative focused on restructuring its intensive case management services. RACETIME to Integrated Care (eg, Risk stratification, Assessment of complexity, Coordinator of lead assignment, Evaluate whole health needs, Trusting partnerships, Integrate care, Monitor progress, Experience of the veteran and employee) is a framework that assists VHA case managers in transitioning from a traditional case management mind-set to a more integrated and holistic method of care.³⁶ RACETIME intensive case management practices will be incorporated into the intervention. However, RACETIME focuses on case management internally to the VHA. A modification for this treatment will be to focus on intensive case management from a mental health perspective and connecting to external community resources. Community referrals are mapped within a structured process and stored on a shared drive. This improves continuity between suicide prevention coordinators when they leave for a new position.

This intervention is conducted within a Zero Suicide framework. Pertinent to PSCI-SPC innovation to enhance care for non-VHA veterans is the care transitions element within the Zero Suicide framework, which has developed comprehensive suicide prevention guidance, including a pathway to care.³² This pathway refers a process to conduct follow-up supportive contacts that are tracked and recorded.

The PSCI-SPC pilot program incorporates the elements of CRP and brief CBT within a Zero Suicide framework. The PSCI-SPC team is developing and testing a protocol for providing brief treatment and community referrals to ineligible veterans that integrates these programming elements (Figure 2). A PSCI-SPC social worker will coordinate with the eligibility office to determine VHA eligibility. Ineligible veterans are referred to community partners and nonenrolled, eligible veterans are linked to VHA HCPs if they desire. These transitions will be coordinated, closely monitored, and verified. The PSCI-SPC team receives referrals from the VCL and other VHA programs that are in contact with ineligible veterans. Other program eligibility criteria include meeting 1 of 3 criteria: (1) a lifetime suicide attempt; (2) suicidal ideation in the past 6 months; or (3) a current mental health disorder. At the outset of the program, it is explained that the purpose of the intervention is to provide short-term, transitional services to assist the veteran in attaining a permanent mental health placement.

Discussion

Improving suicide prevention for veterans who receive non-VHA health care is essential to significantly reduce veteran suicide rates. For the past decade, VHA suicide prevention initiatives have largely focused on veterans eligible for care, although the fastest increase in veteran suicide rates has occurred among veterans not connected to VHA services. Currently, if a veteran is deemed ineligible for care, it is up to the veteran to find other health care services in his or her community. There is not always a clear next step for the veteran to take, nor clear guidance provided to the VHA registration staff to assist with this care transition. This is particularly concerning for veterans at high risk for suicide as this could further thwart the veteran’s sense of belongingness and increase perceived burdensomeness, both suicide risk factors, and discourage them from attaining help.⁴⁰ Overall, while the VHA has successfully implemented diverse suicide prevention initiatives and services, the need for continued system improvement focused on non-VHA veterans remains. PSCI-SPC was developed for this purpose.

By creating a collaborative that will connect VHA and community organizations, there will be better utilization of resources and more appropriate referrals throughout systems that interact with veterans. Sharing suicide prevention best practices between VHA and community partners is expected to increase access to mental health treatment to all veterans. Finally, by allowing best practices for suicide prevention in the VHA to serve as a guide in the development of best practices for suicide prevention between the VHA and the local health and behavioral health care community, PSCI-SPC will create a new suicide prevention intervention for veterans with mental health needs. Through these initiatives, PSCI-SPC will support providers’ and concerned citizens’ efforts to ensure that fewer veterans fall through the cracks of disjointed systems and will promote healthier communities where, regardless of VHA enrollment status, veterans receive suicide prevention care.

Conclusions

PSCI-SPC is a novel center for the innovation and dissemination of the nation’s best practices in suicide prevention for veterans who are ineligible for or otherwise not engaged in VHA services and who turn to their community for health care. PSCI-SPC not only seeks to create, develop, and measure various solutions to reduce suicide among veterans who receive non-VHA care, but also seeks to facilitate the overall quality of existing practices for suicide prevention and care coordination for enrolled veterans who use community resources. By bridging the gap between the VHA, civilian health care systems, and other community partners striving to prevent veteran suicides, we can create better access to care and a more seamless path of communication among these important entities that impact the lives of our veterans daily

Since 2008, suicide has ranked as the tenth leading cause of death for all ages in the US, with rates of suicide continuing to rise.^1-3 Suicide is even more urgent to address in veteran populations. The age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate in 2017 was more than 1.5 times greater for veterans than it was for nonveteran adults.² Of importance, rates of suicide are increasing at a faster rate in veterans who are not connected to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care.^4,5 These at-risk veterans include individuals who are eligible for VHA care yet have not had a VHA appointment within the year before death; veterans who may be ineligible to receive VHA care due to complex rules set by legislation; and veterans who are eligible but not enrolled in VHA care. Notably, between 2005 and 2016, the number of veterans not enrolled in VHA care rose more quickly than did the number of veterans enrolled in VHA care.^5,6 Thus, to impact the high veteran suicide rates, an emergent challenge for VHA is to prevent suicide among unenrolled veterans and veterans receiving community care, while continuing to increase access to mental health services for veterans enrolled in VHA health care.

In response to the high rates of veteran suicide deaths, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed a broad, multicomponent suicide prevention program that is unparalleled in private US health care systems.^4,7 Suicide prevention efforts are led and implemented by both the VHA National Center for Patient Safety and the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Program components are numerous and multifaceted, falling within the broad promotion and prevention strategies outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).^1,8-11 The NAM continuum of prevention model encompassing multiple strategies is also referred to as the Universal, Selective, Indicated (USI) Model.^7,8,10 The VHA suicide prevention program contains a wide spread of program components, making it both comprehensive and innovative (Table 1).

Although significant momentum and progress has been made within the VHA, policy set by legislation has historically limited access to VHA health care services to VHA-eligible veterans. This is particularly concerning given the rising suicide rates among veterans not engaged in VHA care.² Adding to this complexity, recent legislation has increased veterans’ access to non-VHA health care, in addition to their existing access through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs.^12-14 Best practices for suicide prevention are not often implemented in the private sector; thus, these systems are ill prepared to adequately meet the suicide prevention care needs of veterans.^4,15-18 Furthermore, VHA and non-VHA services generally are not well coordinated, and private sector health care providers (HCPs) are not required to complete a commensurate level of suicide prevention training as are VHA HCPs.^16-18 Most non-VHA HCPs do not receive military cultural competence training.¹⁹ These issues create a significant gap in suicide prevention services and may contribute to the increases in suicide rates in veterans who do not receive VHA care. Thus, changes in policy to increase access through private sector care may have paradoxical effects on veteran suicide deaths. To impact the veteran suicide rate, VHA must develop and disseminate best practices for veterans who use non-VHA services.

A Roadmap to Suicide Prevention

There is significant momentum at the federal level regarding this issue. The President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End the National Tragedy of Suicide (Executive Order 13,861) directs the VHA to work closely with community organizations to improve veteran suicide prevention.²⁰ The VHA and partners, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), are bridging this gap with collaborative efforts that increase suicide prevention resources for veterans living in the community through programs such as the Governor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. These programs intend to empower communities to develop statewide, strategic action plans to prevent veteran suicide.^7,21-24

In addition to partnerships, VHA has built other aspects of outreach and intervention into its programming. A key VHA initiative is to “know all veterans” by committing to identifying and reaching out to all veterans who may be at risk for suicide.²² The VHA has committed to offering “emergency stabilization care for former service members who present at the facility with an emergent mental health need” regardless of eligibility.²⁵ The intent is to provide temporary emergent mental health care to veterans who are otherwise ineligible for care, such as those who were discharged under other-than-honorable conditions while the VHA determines eligibility status.²⁶ However, veterans must meet certain criteria, and there is a limit on services.

Although services are being expanded to reach veterans who do not access VHA health care, how to best implement these new directives with regard to suicide prevention is unclear. Strategic development and innovations to expand suicide prevention care to veterans outside the current reach of VHA are desperately needed.

Program Overview 

VHA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry-Suicide Prevention Collaborative (PSCI-SPC), funded by the VHA National Center for Patient Safety, aims to help fill the gap in community-based suicide prevention for veterans. PSCI-SPC is located within the VHA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center in Aurora, Colorado. The overarching mission of PSCI-SPC is to develop, implement, and evaluate practical solutions to reduce suicide among veterans not receiving VHA care. PSCI-SPC serves as a national clinical innovation and dissemination center for best practices in suicide prevention for organizations that serve veterans who receive care in the community. PSCI-SPC creates products to support dissemination of these practices to other VAMCs and works to ensure these programs are sustainable. PSCI-SPC focuses on 3 primary objectives. All PSCI-SPC projects are currently underway.

Objective 1: Growing a Community Learning Collaborative

Acknowledging that nearly two-thirds of veterans who die by suicide do not use VHA services, PSCI-SPC aims to reduce suicide among all veterans by expanding the reach of best practices for suicide prevention to veterans who receive myriad services in the community.²⁷ Community organizations are defined here as organizations that may in some way serve, interact with, or work with veterans, and/or employ veterans. Examples include non-VHA health care systems, public services such as police and fire departments, nonprofit organizations, mental health clinics, and veterans’ courts. As veterans increasingly seek health care and other services within their communities, the success of suicide prevention will be influenced by the capability of non-VHA public and private organizations. Objective 1, therefore, seeks to develop a VHA-community collaborative that can be leveraged to improve systems of suicide prevention.

Current programs in the VHA have focused on implementation of suicide prevention awareness and prevention education campaigns instead of grassroots partnerships that are intended to be sustainable. Additionally, these programs typically lack the capacity and systems to sustain numerous meaningful community partnerships. Traditionally, community organizations have been hesitant to partner with government agencies, such as the VHA, due to histories of institutional mistrust and bureaucracy.²⁸

The PSCI-SPC model for developing a VHA-community collaborative partnership draws from the tradition of community-based participatory research. The best community-based participatory research practices are to build on strengths and resources within the local community; develop collaborative, equitable partnerships that involve an empowering and power-sharing process; foster colearning, heuristics, and capacity building among partners; and focus on systems development using an iterative process. These practices also are consistent with the literature on learning collaboratives.^29-31

The premise for a learning collaborative is to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice in health care.³¹ Figure 1 depicts how this collaborative was developed, and how it supports Objectives 2 and 3. To achieve Objective 1, we developed a VHA-learning collaborative of 13 influential community partners in the Denver and Colorado Springs region of Colorado. The VHA team consists of a learning collaborative leader, a program manager, and a program support assistant. The principal investigator attends and contributes to all meetings. Learning collaborative partners include a university psychology clinic that focuses on veterans’ care, 3 veterans service organizations, a mental health private practice, a university school of nursing, a community mental health center, veterans’ courts, and 5 city departments.

Objective 2: Implementation Toolkit

The second PSCI-SPC objective is to develop a toolkit for the implementation of best practices within a VHA-community suicide prevention learning collaborative. Lessons from the development of a successful suicide prevention learning collaborative will be shared through an online guide that other VHA facilities can use to support similar collaborative efforts within their communities. The toolkit will be disseminated across the VHA to assist suicide prevention coordinators and other staff in developing a suicide prevention learning collaborative at their facilities.

PSCI-SPC uses the Zero Suicide framework and the VA/US Department of Defense (DoD) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Patients at Risk for Suicide as models for preventing suicide in veterans not enrolled in VHA care.^11,32 This implementation toolkit focuses on how to implement suicide prevention best practices into organizations that serve veterans. This toolkit differs from clinical practice guidelines in that it focuses on implementation strategies to promote success and effectively address challenges.

In order to provide a menu of available options for the learning collaborative and resulting toolkit, PSCI-SPC uses a logic model to compare the components of the VHA suicide prevention program, as well as other similar veteran and military suicide prevention programs.^{7,12,14,21,33,34} These programs are categorized into 2 types of prevention frameworks, the USI model as described above, and the SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework (Table 2).³⁵ The SAMHSA framework was designed to promote mental health and prevent substance abuse, yet the derived classification is also applicable to suicide prevention programs.³⁵ The results of the logic model comparison form the basis of the best practice interventions for the learning collaborative and initial toolkit. In addition to the best practice interventions, the toolkit consists of documents describing how to develop a veteran suicide prevention learning collaborative, as well as tools for learning collaborative members. Current tool development includes workbooks to guide collaborative members through the implementation process, guides for community organizations in implementing suicide prevention screening and risk assessment, a standard operating procedure for suicide prevention in a veterans court, and peer support training for veteran suicide prevention.

Objective 3: High-Risk Veterans Not Receiving VHA Care

Although veterans not receiving VHA care account for a number of veteran deaths by suicide, we are not aware of any current VHA programs that provide temporary psychotherapy and intensive case management to at-risk veterans ineligible for VHA care who are in need of immediate care while an appropriate permanent community placement is identified. In the current system, veterans in the community can present to VHA suicide prevention services through several different systems, including referrals to VHA and the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL). However, a portion of VCL calls are from veterans whose VHA eligibility is unknown or who are ineligible for services. If veterans are at imminent risk for suicide, emergency care is coordinated for them. However, if veterans are not at imminent suicide risk they are referred to the local suicide prevention coordinator and instructed to independently work toward determining their VHA eligibility.

It is currently unknown how many veterans follow through with these instructions. Nonetheless, if veterans are deemed eligible, they may present to VHA to obtain a same-day appointment. If not eligible, a suicide prevention coordinator may give them the phone number of a community referral. However, this practice is not standardized across VA medical centers, and the provided resources are up to the suicide prevention coordinator to research. Additionally, when a VHA suicide prevention coordinator leaves the position, knowledge of these community resources and rapport with community HCPs are often lost, leaving the next coordinator to develop these again, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of limited resources. It is also unknown how many veterans complete this contact and receive evidence-based treatment following referral. This is a complex system to navigate, particularly when at risk for suicide and in need of immediate but not emergency services.

Suicide prevention in such circumstances may be improved by adapting current suicide prevention practices, including evidence-based interventions, and the new VHA intensive case management program,^11,36 within a Zero Suicide framework. PSCI-SPC has developed a brief intervention to transition ineligible veterans to permanent community treatment and provide them with additional resources to meet their varied needs. The brief 1 to 3 session intervention combines practices from brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) for suicide prevention, crisis response planning (CRP), and intensive case management within a Zero Suicide framework. Both the 2019 VA/DoD suicide prevention clinical practice guidelines and Zero Suicide recommend using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions for suicide prevention.^11,32 These interventions are packaged into a single intervention delivered by a PSCI-SPC therapist, typically a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed clinical psychologist, or an unlicensed psychologist under the supervision of a licensed clinical psychologist.

BCBT is one type of CBT that has shown initial efficacy in reducing suicide attempts.³⁷ BCBT reduces the risk for suicide attempts both at the conclusion of treatment and at 24-month follow-up.³⁷ BCBT is boiled down to its most essential components so it can be delivered in a distilled format. An essential element of BCBT that will remain is the CRP. A CRP^11,37,38 entails collaboratively identifying effective, appropriate coping strategies and specific individuals to contact during a crisis. CRPs demonstrated efficacy as a stand-alone intervention to existing suicide prevention methods in a randomized clinical trial, such that individuals who received CRP had faster reductions in suicidal ideation and were 76% less likely to make a suicide attempt during the 6-month follow-up period.³⁹ These results demonstrate that use of a CRP is connected to a decrease in suicidal behavior among suicidal patients.

The VHA has developed and is piloting a new initiative focused on restructuring its intensive case management services. RACETIME to Integrated Care (eg, Risk stratification, Assessment of complexity, Coordinator of lead assignment, Evaluate whole health needs, Trusting partnerships, Integrate care, Monitor progress, Experience of the veteran and employee) is a framework that assists VHA case managers in transitioning from a traditional case management mind-set to a more integrated and holistic method of care.³⁶ RACETIME intensive case management practices will be incorporated into the intervention. However, RACETIME focuses on case management internally to the VHA. A modification for this treatment will be to focus on intensive case management from a mental health perspective and connecting to external community resources. Community referrals are mapped within a structured process and stored on a shared drive. This improves continuity between suicide prevention coordinators when they leave for a new position.

This intervention is conducted within a Zero Suicide framework. Pertinent to PSCI-SPC innovation to enhance care for non-VHA veterans is the care transitions element within the Zero Suicide framework, which has developed comprehensive suicide prevention guidance, including a pathway to care.³² This pathway refers a process to conduct follow-up supportive contacts that are tracked and recorded.

The PSCI-SPC pilot program incorporates the elements of CRP and brief CBT within a Zero Suicide framework. The PSCI-SPC team is developing and testing a protocol for providing brief treatment and community referrals to ineligible veterans that integrates these programming elements (Figure 2). A PSCI-SPC social worker will coordinate with the eligibility office to determine VHA eligibility. Ineligible veterans are referred to community partners and nonenrolled, eligible veterans are linked to VHA HCPs if they desire. These transitions will be coordinated, closely monitored, and verified. The PSCI-SPC team receives referrals from the VCL and other VHA programs that are in contact with ineligible veterans. Other program eligibility criteria include meeting 1 of 3 criteria: (1) a lifetime suicide attempt; (2) suicidal ideation in the past 6 months; or (3) a current mental health disorder. At the outset of the program, it is explained that the purpose of the intervention is to provide short-term, transitional services to assist the veteran in attaining a permanent mental health placement.

Discussion

Improving suicide prevention for veterans who receive non-VHA health care is essential to significantly reduce veteran suicide rates. For the past decade, VHA suicide prevention initiatives have largely focused on veterans eligible for care, although the fastest increase in veteran suicide rates has occurred among veterans not connected to VHA services. Currently, if a veteran is deemed ineligible for care, it is up to the veteran to find other health care services in his or her community. There is not always a clear next step for the veteran to take, nor clear guidance provided to the VHA registration staff to assist with this care transition. This is particularly concerning for veterans at high risk for suicide as this could further thwart the veteran’s sense of belongingness and increase perceived burdensomeness, both suicide risk factors, and discourage them from attaining help.⁴⁰ Overall, while the VHA has successfully implemented diverse suicide prevention initiatives and services, the need for continued system improvement focused on non-VHA veterans remains. PSCI-SPC was developed for this purpose.

By creating a collaborative that will connect VHA and community organizations, there will be better utilization of resources and more appropriate referrals throughout systems that interact with veterans. Sharing suicide prevention best practices between VHA and community partners is expected to increase access to mental health treatment to all veterans. Finally, by allowing best practices for suicide prevention in the VHA to serve as a guide in the development of best practices for suicide prevention between the VHA and the local health and behavioral health care community, PSCI-SPC will create a new suicide prevention intervention for veterans with mental health needs. Through these initiatives, PSCI-SPC will support providers’ and concerned citizens’ efforts to ensure that fewer veterans fall through the cracks of disjointed systems and will promote healthier communities where, regardless of VHA enrollment status, veterans receive suicide prevention care.

Conclusions

PSCI-SPC is a novel center for the innovation and dissemination of the nation’s best practices in suicide prevention for veterans who are ineligible for or otherwise not engaged in VHA services and who turn to their community for health care. PSCI-SPC not only seeks to create, develop, and measure various solutions to reduce suicide among veterans who receive non-VHA care, but also seeks to facilitate the overall quality of existing practices for suicide prevention and care coordination for enrolled veterans who use community resources. By bridging the gap between the VHA, civilian health care systems, and other community partners striving to prevent veteran suicides, we can create better access to care and a more seamless path of communication among these important entities that impact the lives of our veterans daily

Since 2008, suicide has ranked as the tenth leading cause of death for all ages in the US, with rates of suicide continuing to rise.^1-3 Suicide is even more urgent to address in veteran populations. The age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate in 2017 was more than 1.5 times greater for veterans than it was for nonveteran adults.² Of importance, rates of suicide are increasing at a faster rate in veterans who are not connected to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care.^4,5 These at-risk veterans include individuals who are eligible for VHA care yet have not had a VHA appointment within the year before death; veterans who may be ineligible to receive VHA care due to complex rules set by legislation; and veterans who are eligible but not enrolled in VHA care. Notably, between 2005 and 2016, the number of veterans not enrolled in VHA care rose more quickly than did the number of veterans enrolled in VHA care.^5,6 Thus, to impact the high veteran suicide rates, an emergent challenge for VHA is to prevent suicide among unenrolled veterans and veterans receiving community care, while continuing to increase access to mental health services for veterans enrolled in VHA health care.

In response to the high rates of veteran suicide deaths, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed a broad, multicomponent suicide prevention program that is unparalleled in private US health care systems.^4,7 Suicide prevention efforts are led and implemented by both the VHA National Center for Patient Safety and the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Program components are numerous and multifaceted, falling within the broad promotion and prevention strategies outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).^1,8-11 The NAM continuum of prevention model encompassing multiple strategies is also referred to as the Universal, Selective, Indicated (USI) Model.^7,8,10 The VHA suicide prevention program contains a wide spread of program components, making it both comprehensive and innovative (Table 1).

Although significant momentum and progress has been made within the VHA, policy set by legislation has historically limited access to VHA health care services to VHA-eligible veterans. This is particularly concerning given the rising suicide rates among veterans not engaged in VHA care.² Adding to this complexity, recent legislation has increased veterans’ access to non-VHA health care, in addition to their existing access through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs.^12-14 Best practices for suicide prevention are not often implemented in the private sector; thus, these systems are ill prepared to adequately meet the suicide prevention care needs of veterans.^4,15-18 Furthermore, VHA and non-VHA services generally are not well coordinated, and private sector health care providers (HCPs) are not required to complete a commensurate level of suicide prevention training as are VHA HCPs.^16-18 Most non-VHA HCPs do not receive military cultural competence training.¹⁹ These issues create a significant gap in suicide prevention services and may contribute to the increases in suicide rates in veterans who do not receive VHA care. Thus, changes in policy to increase access through private sector care may have paradoxical effects on veteran suicide deaths. To impact the veteran suicide rate, VHA must develop and disseminate best practices for veterans who use non-VHA services.

A Roadmap to Suicide Prevention

There is significant momentum at the federal level regarding this issue. The President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End the National Tragedy of Suicide (Executive Order 13,861) directs the VHA to work closely with community organizations to improve veteran suicide prevention.²⁰ The VHA and partners, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), are bridging this gap with collaborative efforts that increase suicide prevention resources for veterans living in the community through programs such as the Governor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. These programs intend to empower communities to develop statewide, strategic action plans to prevent veteran suicide.^7,21-24

In addition to partnerships, VHA has built other aspects of outreach and intervention into its programming. A key VHA initiative is to “know all veterans” by committing to identifying and reaching out to all veterans who may be at risk for suicide.²² The VHA has committed to offering “emergency stabilization care for former service members who present at the facility with an emergent mental health need” regardless of eligibility.²⁵ The intent is to provide temporary emergent mental health care to veterans who are otherwise ineligible for care, such as those who were discharged under other-than-honorable conditions while the VHA determines eligibility status.²⁶ However, veterans must meet certain criteria, and there is a limit on services.

Although services are being expanded to reach veterans who do not access VHA health care, how to best implement these new directives with regard to suicide prevention is unclear. Strategic development and innovations to expand suicide prevention care to veterans outside the current reach of VHA are desperately needed.

Program Overview 

VHA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry-Suicide Prevention Collaborative (PSCI-SPC), funded by the VHA National Center for Patient Safety, aims to help fill the gap in community-based suicide prevention for veterans. PSCI-SPC is located within the VHA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center in Aurora, Colorado. The overarching mission of PSCI-SPC is to develop, implement, and evaluate practical solutions to reduce suicide among veterans not receiving VHA care. PSCI-SPC serves as a national clinical innovation and dissemination center for best practices in suicide prevention for organizations that serve veterans who receive care in the community. PSCI-SPC creates products to support dissemination of these practices to other VAMCs and works to ensure these programs are sustainable. PSCI-SPC focuses on 3 primary objectives. All PSCI-SPC projects are currently underway.

Objective 1: Growing a Community Learning Collaborative

Acknowledging that nearly two-thirds of veterans who die by suicide do not use VHA services, PSCI-SPC aims to reduce suicide among all veterans by expanding the reach of best practices for suicide prevention to veterans who receive myriad services in the community.²⁷ Community organizations are defined here as organizations that may in some way serve, interact with, or work with veterans, and/or employ veterans. Examples include non-VHA health care systems, public services such as police and fire departments, nonprofit organizations, mental health clinics, and veterans’ courts. As veterans increasingly seek health care and other services within their communities, the success of suicide prevention will be influenced by the capability of non-VHA public and private organizations. Objective 1, therefore, seeks to develop a VHA-community collaborative that can be leveraged to improve systems of suicide prevention.

Current programs in the VHA have focused on implementation of suicide prevention awareness and prevention education campaigns instead of grassroots partnerships that are intended to be sustainable. Additionally, these programs typically lack the capacity and systems to sustain numerous meaningful community partnerships. Traditionally, community organizations have been hesitant to partner with government agencies, such as the VHA, due to histories of institutional mistrust and bureaucracy.²⁸

The PSCI-SPC model for developing a VHA-community collaborative partnership draws from the tradition of community-based participatory research. The best community-based participatory research practices are to build on strengths and resources within the local community; develop collaborative, equitable partnerships that involve an empowering and power-sharing process; foster colearning, heuristics, and capacity building among partners; and focus on systems development using an iterative process. These practices also are consistent with the literature on learning collaboratives.^29-31

The premise for a learning collaborative is to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice in health care.³¹ Figure 1 depicts how this collaborative was developed, and how it supports Objectives 2 and 3. To achieve Objective 1, we developed a VHA-learning collaborative of 13 influential community partners in the Denver and Colorado Springs region of Colorado. The VHA team consists of a learning collaborative leader, a program manager, and a program support assistant. The principal investigator attends and contributes to all meetings. Learning collaborative partners include a university psychology clinic that focuses on veterans’ care, 3 veterans service organizations, a mental health private practice, a university school of nursing, a community mental health center, veterans’ courts, and 5 city departments.

Objective 2: Implementation Toolkit

The second PSCI-SPC objective is to develop a toolkit for the implementation of best practices within a VHA-community suicide prevention learning collaborative. Lessons from the development of a successful suicide prevention learning collaborative will be shared through an online guide that other VHA facilities can use to support similar collaborative efforts within their communities. The toolkit will be disseminated across the VHA to assist suicide prevention coordinators and other staff in developing a suicide prevention learning collaborative at their facilities.

PSCI-SPC uses the Zero Suicide framework and the VA/US Department of Defense (DoD) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Patients at Risk for Suicide as models for preventing suicide in veterans not enrolled in VHA care.^11,32 This implementation toolkit focuses on how to implement suicide prevention best practices into organizations that serve veterans. This toolkit differs from clinical practice guidelines in that it focuses on implementation strategies to promote success and effectively address challenges.

In order to provide a menu of available options for the learning collaborative and resulting toolkit, PSCI-SPC uses a logic model to compare the components of the VHA suicide prevention program, as well as other similar veteran and military suicide prevention programs.^{7,12,14,21,33,34} These programs are categorized into 2 types of prevention frameworks, the USI model as described above, and the SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework (Table 2).³⁵ The SAMHSA framework was designed to promote mental health and prevent substance abuse, yet the derived classification is also applicable to suicide prevention programs.³⁵ The results of the logic model comparison form the basis of the best practice interventions for the learning collaborative and initial toolkit. In addition to the best practice interventions, the toolkit consists of documents describing how to develop a veteran suicide prevention learning collaborative, as well as tools for learning collaborative members. Current tool development includes workbooks to guide collaborative members through the implementation process, guides for community organizations in implementing suicide prevention screening and risk assessment, a standard operating procedure for suicide prevention in a veterans court, and peer support training for veteran suicide prevention.

Objective 3: High-Risk Veterans Not Receiving VHA Care

Although veterans not receiving VHA care account for a number of veteran deaths by suicide, we are not aware of any current VHA programs that provide temporary psychotherapy and intensive case management to at-risk veterans ineligible for VHA care who are in need of immediate care while an appropriate permanent community placement is identified. In the current system, veterans in the community can present to VHA suicide prevention services through several different systems, including referrals to VHA and the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL). However, a portion of VCL calls are from veterans whose VHA eligibility is unknown or who are ineligible for services. If veterans are at imminent risk for suicide, emergency care is coordinated for them. However, if veterans are not at imminent suicide risk they are referred to the local suicide prevention coordinator and instructed to independently work toward determining their VHA eligibility.

It is currently unknown how many veterans follow through with these instructions. Nonetheless, if veterans are deemed eligible, they may present to VHA to obtain a same-day appointment. If not eligible, a suicide prevention coordinator may give them the phone number of a community referral. However, this practice is not standardized across VA medical centers, and the provided resources are up to the suicide prevention coordinator to research. Additionally, when a VHA suicide prevention coordinator leaves the position, knowledge of these community resources and rapport with community HCPs are often lost, leaving the next coordinator to develop these again, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of limited resources. It is also unknown how many veterans complete this contact and receive evidence-based treatment following referral. This is a complex system to navigate, particularly when at risk for suicide and in need of immediate but not emergency services.

Suicide prevention in such circumstances may be improved by adapting current suicide prevention practices, including evidence-based interventions, and the new VHA intensive case management program,^11,36 within a Zero Suicide framework. PSCI-SPC has developed a brief intervention to transition ineligible veterans to permanent community treatment and provide them with additional resources to meet their varied needs. The brief 1 to 3 session intervention combines practices from brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) for suicide prevention, crisis response planning (CRP), and intensive case management within a Zero Suicide framework. Both the 2019 VA/DoD suicide prevention clinical practice guidelines and Zero Suicide recommend using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions for suicide prevention.^11,32 These interventions are packaged into a single intervention delivered by a PSCI-SPC therapist, typically a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed clinical psychologist, or an unlicensed psychologist under the supervision of a licensed clinical psychologist.

BCBT is one type of CBT that has shown initial efficacy in reducing suicide attempts.³⁷ BCBT reduces the risk for suicide attempts both at the conclusion of treatment and at 24-month follow-up.³⁷ BCBT is boiled down to its most essential components so it can be delivered in a distilled format. An essential element of BCBT that will remain is the CRP. A CRP^11,37,38 entails collaboratively identifying effective, appropriate coping strategies and specific individuals to contact during a crisis. CRPs demonstrated efficacy as a stand-alone intervention to existing suicide prevention methods in a randomized clinical trial, such that individuals who received CRP had faster reductions in suicidal ideation and were 76% less likely to make a suicide attempt during the 6-month follow-up period.³⁹ These results demonstrate that use of a CRP is connected to a decrease in suicidal behavior among suicidal patients.

The VHA has developed and is piloting a new initiative focused on restructuring its intensive case management services. RACETIME to Integrated Care (eg, Risk stratification, Assessment of complexity, Coordinator of lead assignment, Evaluate whole health needs, Trusting partnerships, Integrate care, Monitor progress, Experience of the veteran and employee) is a framework that assists VHA case managers in transitioning from a traditional case management mind-set to a more integrated and holistic method of care.³⁶ RACETIME intensive case management practices will be incorporated into the intervention. However, RACETIME focuses on case management internally to the VHA. A modification for this treatment will be to focus on intensive case management from a mental health perspective and connecting to external community resources. Community referrals are mapped within a structured process and stored on a shared drive. This improves continuity between suicide prevention coordinators when they leave for a new position.

This intervention is conducted within a Zero Suicide framework. Pertinent to PSCI-SPC innovation to enhance care for non-VHA veterans is the care transitions element within the Zero Suicide framework, which has developed comprehensive suicide prevention guidance, including a pathway to care.³² This pathway refers a process to conduct follow-up supportive contacts that are tracked and recorded.

The PSCI-SPC pilot program incorporates the elements of CRP and brief CBT within a Zero Suicide framework. The PSCI-SPC team is developing and testing a protocol for providing brief treatment and community referrals to ineligible veterans that integrates these programming elements (Figure 2). A PSCI-SPC social worker will coordinate with the eligibility office to determine VHA eligibility. Ineligible veterans are referred to community partners and nonenrolled, eligible veterans are linked to VHA HCPs if they desire. These transitions will be coordinated, closely monitored, and verified. The PSCI-SPC team receives referrals from the VCL and other VHA programs that are in contact with ineligible veterans. Other program eligibility criteria include meeting 1 of 3 criteria: (1) a lifetime suicide attempt; (2) suicidal ideation in the past 6 months; or (3) a current mental health disorder. At the outset of the program, it is explained that the purpose of the intervention is to provide short-term, transitional services to assist the veteran in attaining a permanent mental health placement.

Discussion

Improving suicide prevention for veterans who receive non-VHA health care is essential to significantly reduce veteran suicide rates. For the past decade, VHA suicide prevention initiatives have largely focused on veterans eligible for care, although the fastest increase in veteran suicide rates has occurred among veterans not connected to VHA services. Currently, if a veteran is deemed ineligible for care, it is up to the veteran to find other health care services in his or her community. There is not always a clear next step for the veteran to take, nor clear guidance provided to the VHA registration staff to assist with this care transition. This is particularly concerning for veterans at high risk for suicide as this could further thwart the veteran’s sense of belongingness and increase perceived burdensomeness, both suicide risk factors, and discourage them from attaining help.⁴⁰ Overall, while the VHA has successfully implemented diverse suicide prevention initiatives and services, the need for continued system improvement focused on non-VHA veterans remains. PSCI-SPC was developed for this purpose.

By creating a collaborative that will connect VHA and community organizations, there will be better utilization of resources and more appropriate referrals throughout systems that interact with veterans. Sharing suicide prevention best practices between VHA and community partners is expected to increase access to mental health treatment to all veterans. Finally, by allowing best practices for suicide prevention in the VHA to serve as a guide in the development of best practices for suicide prevention between the VHA and the local health and behavioral health care community, PSCI-SPC will create a new suicide prevention intervention for veterans with mental health needs. Through these initiatives, PSCI-SPC will support providers’ and concerned citizens’ efforts to ensure that fewer veterans fall through the cracks of disjointed systems and will promote healthier communities where, regardless of VHA enrollment status, veterans receive suicide prevention care.

Conclusions

PSCI-SPC is a novel center for the innovation and dissemination of the nation’s best practices in suicide prevention for veterans who are ineligible for or otherwise not engaged in VHA services and who turn to their community for health care. PSCI-SPC not only seeks to create, develop, and measure various solutions to reduce suicide among veterans who receive non-VHA care, but also seeks to facilitate the overall quality of existing practices for suicide prevention and care coordination for enrolled veterans who use community resources. By bridging the gap between the VHA, civilian health care systems, and other community partners striving to prevent veteran suicides, we can create better access to care and a more seamless path of communication among these important entities that impact the lives of our veterans daily

Atypical antipsychotic use may result in metabolic abnormalities, such as hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, weight gain, and metabolic syndrome. These adverse effects (AEs) can cause progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as well as increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cardiac mortality. Individuals diagnosed with T2DM have medical expenses that are about 2.3 times higher than individuals without diabetes.^1,2 The risk of experiencing metabolic abnormalities is likely elevated for patients who were antipsychotic-naïve prior to initiation.³

In response to an increased awareness of atypical antipsychotic-related AEs, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a consensus statement in 2004 with a metabolic monitoring protocol for patients initiating or changing to a new antipsychotic medication.⁴ Within the first year after initiation, the ADA/APA consensus statements recommends that clinicians acquire a personal and family history, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure (BP), fasting plasma glucose, and fasting lipid profile at the initial patient visit. Patient weight is recommended to be collected at 4 weeks and again 8 weeks later. Twelve weeks after the initial visit, weight, BMI, BP, fasting plasma glucose and a fasting lipid profile are recommended to be collected and assessed for abnormalities. Weight is then recommended to be assessed every 3 months thereafter. Review of personal and family history, waist circumference, BP, and a fasting plasma glucose is recommended to occur annually. Finally, a fasting lipid profile is to be collected every 5 years.

Since the initial consensus statement release, metabolic monitoring of patients prescribed antipsychotic medications has been found to be inadequate within several large health care organizations.^5,6 Mittal and colleagues reviewed metabolic monitoring practices occurring in 32 facilities within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and found that monitoring practices in the first 90 days after antipsychotic initiation were largely nonadherent to the ADA/APA consensus statement recommendations.⁶ Medical staff in Veterans Integrated Service Network 21 (VISN 21) currently serve about 268,000 veterans actively receiving care across California, Nevada, and the Pacific Islands.To support veteran care in the fields of mental health and medication safety, the VISN 21 pharmacy benefits manager office created a clinical dashboard that identifies veterans who are currently prescribed an antipsychotic and have not completed at least 1 annual blood glucose test. While this dashboard is a valuable tool for tracking patient care for those who have been prescribed an antipsychotic > 1 year, it does not consider the ADA/APA recommendations for more frequent monitoring in the first year after initiation. A literature review found no citations of a systematic evaluation of adherence to ADA/APA monitoring recommendations or patient progression to T2DM in the first year after antipsychotic initiation for an antipsychotic-naïve veteran population. The goal of this quality improvement project is to assess VHA health care provider and patient adherence to the 2004 consensus statement recommendations within the first year after initiation for previously antipsychotic-naïve patients receiving an atypical antipsychotic and determine rate of progression to T2DM.

Methods

The project was reviewed by the University of Nevada-Reno Institutional Review Board and determined to be a nonresearch quality improvement project. This was a retrospective chart analysis that included patients receiving their first-ever atypical antipsychotic across 8 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers within VISN 21. Clinical patient data, including prescription, vital sign, and laboratory information, were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse using transact sequential query language.

Veterans were included in the final cohort if they met the following criteria: aged ≥ 18 years at antipsychotic initiation, initiated their first-ever atypical antipsychotic within the VHA between February 2014 and February 2019, continued the antipsychotic for ≥ 1 year, had a medication possession ratio (MPR) > 80%, and had previously established care within VHA as evidenced by having ≥ 1 primary care or outpatient mental health visit in the 6 months prior to initiation. The MPR is defined as the sum of the day’s supply of all dispensed medications in the project time frame divided by the total number of days in the project time frame.

Veterans were excluded if they initiated any other antipsychotic during the first course, had a prior diagnosis of T2DM, had any prior use of antidiabetic medications, or had a hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) > 6.4 in the year prior to initiation.

The primary outcome was completion of all recommended metabolic monitoring time points in the first year after atypical antipsychotic initiation. The secondary outcome was incidence of T2DM as evidenced by either a HbA_1c > 6.4 or diagnosis of T2DM entered into the electronic health record. Baseline monitoring for BP, blood glucose, and lipids were considered complete if a data point was collected between 3 months prior and 1 month after atypical antipsychotic initiation. Baseline monitoring for weight was considered complete if a data point was collected between 3 months prior and 2 weeks after initiation. Follow-up monitoring for BP, blood glucose, and lipids were considered completed if a data point was collected at 3 and 12 months (mean, 1 month). Follow-up monitoring for weight was considered completed if collected at 1, 2, and 3 months (mean, 2 weeks) and at 6, 9, and 12 months (mean, 1 month). Waist circumference data and patient and family history are not collected as capturable data points. Therefore, the authors were unable to include these in the final data extraction.

Results

The final cohort consisted of 1,651 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. Overall, at antipsychotic initiation the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 55 (14.6) years, was largely male (88%), and was considered overweight with a mean (SD) BMI of 29.1 (6.4) (Table 1).

Appropriate BP monitoring was completed most often with 492 patients (30%) meeting ADA/APA recommendations followed by HbA_1c and/or blood glucose monitoring with 203 patients (12%) completing all time points. Recommended lipid monitoring was completed by 96 patients (6%). Weight monitoring was completed least often with 47 patients (3%) completing all recommended time points. Regarding completion of all metabolic monitoring time points, 3 (0.2%) patients in the final cohort were found to have completed all recommended monitoring. Ninety-nine patients (6%) were found to have progressed to T2DM as indicated by an HbA_1c > 6.4 and/or entry of a T2DM ninth or tenth edition International Statistical Classification of Diseases code into the chart (Table 2).

Discussion

No previous literature exists that reviews adherence to recommended metabolic monitoring guidance up to 1 year after antipsychotic initiation in a previously antipsychotic-naïve cohort within the VHA. Metabolic monitoring was overall incomplete with 0.2% of the cohort completing all recommended monitoring time points. Weight was the parameter that was least completed. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that efforts are needed to improve completion rates of atypical antipsychotic metabolic monitoring. In the final cohort, 6% of patients were noted to have progressed to T2DM in the first year after atypical antipsychotic initiation. The actual number of patients progressing to T2DM may be larger because not all received adequate blood glucose monitoring. For comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released information in 2015 that stated that the US population has an annual T2DM incidence of about 1% for adults aged 45 to 64 years.⁷

We understand that individuals with mental health disorders are at increased risk of T2DM compared with that of the general population and hope that this comparison only serves to drive home the point that appropriate metabolic monitoring is vital for this subgroup. The strengths of this project include identification of an area for improvement and encouraging evidence-based monitoring. Utilization of clinical data is a cost-effective and efficient method to improve patient care.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the data’s dependence on accuracy of entry by the end-user and a lack of available data regarding prescriptions dispensed outside of the VHA. Vital signs data may have been entered into patient notes and not documented in the vitals section of the current medical record causing the appearance of missing data. Access to VHA health services and patient adherence to follow-up appointments were not assessed in this project and could affect patient ability to complete follow-up. The final analysis included only patients who remained on 1 atypical antipsychotic for a year and were considered adherent with an MPR > 80% and did not consider less adherent patients. It is also possible that health care providers who closely monitor metabolic parameters after atypical antipsychotic initiation more frequently switch patients to an alternative atypical antipsychotic while others who monitor less also switch medications less frequently. This could lead to selection of patients with health care providers who are less adherent to metabolic monitoring recommendations.

Conclusions

As a result of this study, in VISN 21 several strategies will be implemented to improve monitoring. First, the results of this project will be shared with the subject matter experts of the VISN 21 Mental Health Task Force. This task force serves as a venue for clinicians to meet virtually, discuss clinical topics, as well as to create and distribute strategies to improve patient care. Clinicians at this forum will be encouraged to implement monitoring protocols into routine practice, share best practices with colleagues, and increase patient awareness about the importance of metabolic monitoring. Second, modifications may be applied to the electronic health record to guide metabolic monitoring order entry at the time of prescription entry, which includes development of clinical reminders and laboratory order sets. Third, the clinical data manager team may be leveraged to create an electronic report identifying patients currently receiving suboptimal monitoring in the first year after antipsychotic initiation. The patients identified in this report will be discussed at the recurring VISN 21 Mental Health Task Force meeting, and strong practices will be shared with the medical centers across VISN 21. Other strategies under consideration include requiring proof of metabolic monitoring completion prior to allowing further atypical antipsychotic refills and providing direct provider education regarding the ADA/APA metabolic monitoring recommendations via the academic detailing service in effort to standardize clinical care.

Atypical antipsychotic use may result in metabolic abnormalities, such as hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, weight gain, and metabolic syndrome. These adverse effects (AEs) can cause progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as well as increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cardiac mortality. Individuals diagnosed with T2DM have medical expenses that are about 2.3 times higher than individuals without diabetes.^1,2 The risk of experiencing metabolic abnormalities is likely elevated for patients who were antipsychotic-naïve prior to initiation.³

In response to an increased awareness of atypical antipsychotic-related AEs, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a consensus statement in 2004 with a metabolic monitoring protocol for patients initiating or changing to a new antipsychotic medication.⁴ Within the first year after initiation, the ADA/APA consensus statements recommends that clinicians acquire a personal and family history, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure (BP), fasting plasma glucose, and fasting lipid profile at the initial patient visit. Patient weight is recommended to be collected at 4 weeks and again 8 weeks later. Twelve weeks after the initial visit, weight, BMI, BP, fasting plasma glucose and a fasting lipid profile are recommended to be collected and assessed for abnormalities. Weight is then recommended to be assessed every 3 months thereafter. Review of personal and family history, waist circumference, BP, and a fasting plasma glucose is recommended to occur annually. Finally, a fasting lipid profile is to be collected every 5 years.

Since the initial consensus statement release, metabolic monitoring of patients prescribed antipsychotic medications has been found to be inadequate within several large health care organizations.^5,6 Mittal and colleagues reviewed metabolic monitoring practices occurring in 32 facilities within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and found that monitoring practices in the first 90 days after antipsychotic initiation were largely nonadherent to the ADA/APA consensus statement recommendations.⁶ Medical staff in Veterans Integrated Service Network 21 (VISN 21) currently serve about 268,000 veterans actively receiving care across California, Nevada, and the Pacific Islands.To support veteran care in the fields of mental health and medication safety, the VISN 21 pharmacy benefits manager office created a clinical dashboard that identifies veterans who are currently prescribed an antipsychotic and have not completed at least 1 annual blood glucose test. While this dashboard is a valuable tool for tracking patient care for those who have been prescribed an antipsychotic > 1 year, it does not consider the ADA/APA recommendations for more frequent monitoring in the first year after initiation. A literature review found no citations of a systematic evaluation of adherence to ADA/APA monitoring recommendations or patient progression to T2DM in the first year after antipsychotic initiation for an antipsychotic-naïve veteran population. The goal of this quality improvement project is to assess VHA health care provider and patient adherence to the 2004 consensus statement recommendations within the first year after initiation for previously antipsychotic-naïve patients receiving an atypical antipsychotic and determine rate of progression to T2DM.

Methods

The project was reviewed by the University of Nevada-Reno Institutional Review Board and determined to be a nonresearch quality improvement project. This was a retrospective chart analysis that included patients receiving their first-ever atypical antipsychotic across 8 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers within VISN 21. Clinical patient data, including prescription, vital sign, and laboratory information, were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse using transact sequential query language.

Veterans were included in the final cohort if they met the following criteria: aged ≥ 18 years at antipsychotic initiation, initiated their first-ever atypical antipsychotic within the VHA between February 2014 and February 2019, continued the antipsychotic for ≥ 1 year, had a medication possession ratio (MPR) > 80%, and had previously established care within VHA as evidenced by having ≥ 1 primary care or outpatient mental health visit in the 6 months prior to initiation. The MPR is defined as the sum of the day’s supply of all dispensed medications in the project time frame divided by the total number of days in the project time frame.

Veterans were excluded if they initiated any other antipsychotic during the first course, had a prior diagnosis of T2DM, had any prior use of antidiabetic medications, or had a hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) > 6.4 in the year prior to initiation.

The primary outcome was completion of all recommended metabolic monitoring time points in the first year after atypical antipsychotic initiation. The secondary outcome was incidence of T2DM as evidenced by either a HbA_1c > 6.4 or diagnosis of T2DM entered into the electronic health record. Baseline monitoring for BP, blood glucose, and lipids were considered complete if a data point was collected between 3 months prior and 1 month after atypical antipsychotic initiation. Baseline monitoring for weight was considered complete if a data point was collected between 3 months prior and 2 weeks after initiation. Follow-up monitoring for BP, blood glucose, and lipids were considered completed if a data point was collected at 3 and 12 months (mean, 1 month). Follow-up monitoring for weight was considered completed if collected at 1, 2, and 3 months (mean, 2 weeks) and at 6, 9, and 12 months (mean, 1 month). Waist circumference data and patient and family history are not collected as capturable data points. Therefore, the authors were unable to include these in the final data extraction.

Results

The final cohort consisted of 1,651 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. Overall, at antipsychotic initiation the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 55 (14.6) years, was largely male (88%), and was considered overweight with a mean (SD) BMI of 29.1 (6.4) (Table 1).

Appropriate BP monitoring was completed most often with 492 patients (30%) meeting ADA/APA recommendations followed by HbA_1c and/or blood glucose monitoring with 203 patients (12%) completing all time points. Recommended lipid monitoring was completed by 96 patients (6%). Weight monitoring was completed least often with 47 patients (3%) completing all recommended time points. Regarding completion of all metabolic monitoring time points, 3 (0.2%) patients in the final cohort were found to have completed all recommended monitoring. Ninety-nine patients (6%) were found to have progressed to T2DM as indicated by an HbA_1c > 6.4 and/or entry of a T2DM ninth or tenth edition International Statistical Classification of Diseases code into the chart (Table 2).

Discussion

No previous literature exists that reviews adherence to recommended metabolic monitoring guidance up to 1 year after antipsychotic initiation in a previously antipsychotic-naïve cohort within the VHA. Metabolic monitoring was overall incomplete with 0.2% of the cohort completing all recommended monitoring time points. Weight was the parameter that was least completed. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that efforts are needed to improve completion rates of atypical antipsychotic metabolic monitoring. In the final cohort, 6% of patients were noted to have progressed to T2DM in the first year after atypical antipsychotic initiation. The actual number of patients progressing to T2DM may be larger because not all received adequate blood glucose monitoring. For comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released information in 2015 that stated that the US population has an annual T2DM incidence of about 1% for adults aged 45 to 64 years.⁷

We understand that individuals with mental health disorders are at increased risk of T2DM compared with that of the general population and hope that this comparison only serves to drive home the point that appropriate metabolic monitoring is vital for this subgroup. The strengths of this project include identification of an area for improvement and encouraging evidence-based monitoring. Utilization of clinical data is a cost-effective and efficient method to improve patient care.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the data’s dependence on accuracy of entry by the end-user and a lack of available data regarding prescriptions dispensed outside of the VHA. Vital signs data may have been entered into patient notes and not documented in the vitals section of the current medical record causing the appearance of missing data. Access to VHA health services and patient adherence to follow-up appointments were not assessed in this project and could affect patient ability to complete follow-up. The final analysis included only patients who remained on 1 atypical antipsychotic for a year and were considered adherent with an MPR > 80% and did not consider less adherent patients. It is also possible that health care providers who closely monitor metabolic parameters after atypical antipsychotic initiation more frequently switch patients to an alternative atypical antipsychotic while others who monitor less also switch medications less frequently. This could lead to selection of patients with health care providers who are less adherent to metabolic monitoring recommendations.

Conclusions

As a result of this study, in VISN 21 several strategies will be implemented to improve monitoring. First, the results of this project will be shared with the subject matter experts of the VISN 21 Mental Health Task Force. This task force serves as a venue for clinicians to meet virtually, discuss clinical topics, as well as to create and distribute strategies to improve patient care. Clinicians at this forum will be encouraged to implement monitoring protocols into routine practice, share best practices with colleagues, and increase patient awareness about the importance of metabolic monitoring. Second, modifications may be applied to the electronic health record to guide metabolic monitoring order entry at the time of prescription entry, which includes development of clinical reminders and laboratory order sets. Third, the clinical data manager team may be leveraged to create an electronic report identifying patients currently receiving suboptimal monitoring in the first year after antipsychotic initiation. The patients identified in this report will be discussed at the recurring VISN 21 Mental Health Task Force meeting, and strong practices will be shared with the medical centers across VISN 21. Other strategies under consideration include requiring proof of metabolic monitoring completion prior to allowing further atypical antipsychotic refills and providing direct provider education regarding the ADA/APA metabolic monitoring recommendations via the academic detailing service in effort to standardize clinical care.

Atypical antipsychotic use may result in metabolic abnormalities, such as hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, weight gain, and metabolic syndrome. These adverse effects (AEs) can cause progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as well as increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cardiac mortality. Individuals diagnosed with T2DM have medical expenses that are about 2.3 times higher than individuals without diabetes.^1,2 The risk of experiencing metabolic abnormalities is likely elevated for patients who were antipsychotic-naïve prior to initiation.³

In response to an increased awareness of atypical antipsychotic-related AEs, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a consensus statement in 2004 with a metabolic monitoring protocol for patients initiating or changing to a new antipsychotic medication.⁴ Within the first year after initiation, the ADA/APA consensus statements recommends that clinicians acquire a personal and family history, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure (BP), fasting plasma glucose, and fasting lipid profile at the initial patient visit. Patient weight is recommended to be collected at 4 weeks and again 8 weeks later. Twelve weeks after the initial visit, weight, BMI, BP, fasting plasma glucose and a fasting lipid profile are recommended to be collected and assessed for abnormalities. Weight is then recommended to be assessed every 3 months thereafter. Review of personal and family history, waist circumference, BP, and a fasting plasma glucose is recommended to occur annually. Finally, a fasting lipid profile is to be collected every 5 years.

Since the initial consensus statement release, metabolic monitoring of patients prescribed antipsychotic medications has been found to be inadequate within several large health care organizations.^5,6 Mittal and colleagues reviewed metabolic monitoring practices occurring in 32 facilities within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and found that monitoring practices in the first 90 days after antipsychotic initiation were largely nonadherent to the ADA/APA consensus statement recommendations.⁶ Medical staff in Veterans Integrated Service Network 21 (VISN 21) currently serve about 268,000 veterans actively receiving care across California, Nevada, and the Pacific Islands.To support veteran care in the fields of mental health and medication safety, the VISN 21 pharmacy benefits manager office created a clinical dashboard that identifies veterans who are currently prescribed an antipsychotic and have not completed at least 1 annual blood glucose test. While this dashboard is a valuable tool for tracking patient care for those who have been prescribed an antipsychotic > 1 year, it does not consider the ADA/APA recommendations for more frequent monitoring in the first year after initiation. A literature review found no citations of a systematic evaluation of adherence to ADA/APA monitoring recommendations or patient progression to T2DM in the first year after antipsychotic initiation for an antipsychotic-naïve veteran population. The goal of this quality improvement project is to assess VHA health care provider and patient adherence to the 2004 consensus statement recommendations within the first year after initiation for previously antipsychotic-naïve patients receiving an atypical antipsychotic and determine rate of progression to T2DM.

Methods

The project was reviewed by the University of Nevada-Reno Institutional Review Board and determined to be a nonresearch quality improvement project. This was a retrospective chart analysis that included patients receiving their first-ever atypical antipsychotic across 8 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers within VISN 21. Clinical patient data, including prescription, vital sign, and laboratory information, were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse using transact sequential query language.

Veterans were included in the final cohort if they met the following criteria: aged ≥ 18 years at antipsychotic initiation, initiated their first-ever atypical antipsychotic within the VHA between February 2014 and February 2019, continued the antipsychotic for ≥ 1 year, had a medication possession ratio (MPR) > 80%, and had previously established care within VHA as evidenced by having ≥ 1 primary care or outpatient mental health visit in the 6 months prior to initiation. The MPR is defined as the sum of the day’s supply of all dispensed medications in the project time frame divided by the total number of days in the project time frame.

Veterans were excluded if they initiated any other antipsychotic during the first course, had a prior diagnosis of T2DM, had any prior use of antidiabetic medications, or had a hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) > 6.4 in the year prior to initiation.

The primary outcome was completion of all recommended metabolic monitoring time points in the first year after atypical antipsychotic initiation. The secondary outcome was incidence of T2DM as evidenced by either a HbA_1c > 6.4 or diagnosis of T2DM entered into the electronic health record. Baseline monitoring for BP, blood glucose, and lipids were considered complete if a data point was collected between 3 months prior and 1 month after atypical antipsychotic initiation. Baseline monitoring for weight was considered complete if a data point was collected between 3 months prior and 2 weeks after initiation. Follow-up monitoring for BP, blood glucose, and lipids were considered completed if a data point was collected at 3 and 12 months (mean, 1 month). Follow-up monitoring for weight was considered completed if collected at 1, 2, and 3 months (mean, 2 weeks) and at 6, 9, and 12 months (mean, 1 month). Waist circumference data and patient and family history are not collected as capturable data points. Therefore, the authors were unable to include these in the final data extraction.

Results

The final cohort consisted of 1,651 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. Overall, at antipsychotic initiation the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 55 (14.6) years, was largely male (88%), and was considered overweight with a mean (SD) BMI of 29.1 (6.4) (Table 1).

Appropriate BP monitoring was completed most often with 492 patients (30%) meeting ADA/APA recommendations followed by HbA_1c and/or blood glucose monitoring with 203 patients (12%) completing all time points. Recommended lipid monitoring was completed by 96 patients (6%). Weight monitoring was completed least often with 47 patients (3%) completing all recommended time points. Regarding completion of all metabolic monitoring time points, 3 (0.2%) patients in the final cohort were found to have completed all recommended monitoring. Ninety-nine patients (6%) were found to have progressed to T2DM as indicated by an HbA_1c > 6.4 and/or entry of a T2DM ninth or tenth edition International Statistical Classification of Diseases code into the chart (Table 2).

Discussion

No previous literature exists that reviews adherence to recommended metabolic monitoring guidance up to 1 year after antipsychotic initiation in a previously antipsychotic-naïve cohort within the VHA. Metabolic monitoring was overall incomplete with 0.2% of the cohort completing all recommended monitoring time points. Weight was the parameter that was least completed. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that efforts are needed to improve completion rates of atypical antipsychotic metabolic monitoring. In the final cohort, 6% of patients were noted to have progressed to T2DM in the first year after atypical antipsychotic initiation. The actual number of patients progressing to T2DM may be larger because not all received adequate blood glucose monitoring. For comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released information in 2015 that stated that the US population has an annual T2DM incidence of about 1% for adults aged 45 to 64 years.⁷

We understand that individuals with mental health disorders are at increased risk of T2DM compared with that of the general population and hope that this comparison only serves to drive home the point that appropriate metabolic monitoring is vital for this subgroup. The strengths of this project include identification of an area for improvement and encouraging evidence-based monitoring. Utilization of clinical data is a cost-effective and efficient method to improve patient care.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the data’s dependence on accuracy of entry by the end-user and a lack of available data regarding prescriptions dispensed outside of the VHA. Vital signs data may have been entered into patient notes and not documented in the vitals section of the current medical record causing the appearance of missing data. Access to VHA health services and patient adherence to follow-up appointments were not assessed in this project and could affect patient ability to complete follow-up. The final analysis included only patients who remained on 1 atypical antipsychotic for a year and were considered adherent with an MPR > 80% and did not consider less adherent patients. It is also possible that health care providers who closely monitor metabolic parameters after atypical antipsychotic initiation more frequently switch patients to an alternative atypical antipsychotic while others who monitor less also switch medications less frequently. This could lead to selection of patients with health care providers who are less adherent to metabolic monitoring recommendations.

Conclusions

As a result of this study, in VISN 21 several strategies will be implemented to improve monitoring. First, the results of this project will be shared with the subject matter experts of the VISN 21 Mental Health Task Force. This task force serves as a venue for clinicians to meet virtually, discuss clinical topics, as well as to create and distribute strategies to improve patient care. Clinicians at this forum will be encouraged to implement monitoring protocols into routine practice, share best practices with colleagues, and increase patient awareness about the importance of metabolic monitoring. Second, modifications may be applied to the electronic health record to guide metabolic monitoring order entry at the time of prescription entry, which includes development of clinical reminders and laboratory order sets. Third, the clinical data manager team may be leveraged to create an electronic report identifying patients currently receiving suboptimal monitoring in the first year after antipsychotic initiation. The patients identified in this report will be discussed at the recurring VISN 21 Mental Health Task Force meeting, and strong practices will be shared with the medical centers across VISN 21. Other strategies under consideration include requiring proof of metabolic monitoring completion prior to allowing further atypical antipsychotic refills and providing direct provider education regarding the ADA/APA metabolic monitoring recommendations via the academic detailing service in effort to standardize clinical care.

Using principles of psychoanalysis to craft public health messaging may be a novel and effective way of increasing adherence to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts say.

In a letter published online Oct. 19 in The Lancet, coauthors Austin Ratner, MD, and Nisarg Gandhi, believe that, as expert communicators, psychoanalysts should be part of the public health care team to help battle the pandemic.

“The idea of using psychoanalysis in a public health setting is relatively unheard of,” Ratner, the author of a book titled “The Psychoanalyst’s Aversion to Proof,” told Medscape Medical News. Ratner earned his MD at John Hopkins School of Medicine but left medicine to become an author. Gandhi is a clinical research intern at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, New Jersey.

Psychoanalysis postulates that defense mechanisms, such as denial, may play an important role in nonadherence to public health guidance regarding the pandemic, Ratner said.

“Denial is a Freudian concept and we can see how it is rearing its ugly head in a number of prominent ways all around us, including nonadherence to medical advice regarding COVID-19, as well as climate change and politics.

“By understanding that fear and anxiety underpin a lot of denial, the psychoanalytic viewpoint can help influence public health officials in recognizing the fear and anxiety, how to talk about the threat [of the pandemic], and what can be done about it,” he added.
 

“A new partnership”

“Psychoanalysts have historically resisted collaboration with disciplines such as social and experimental psychology,” Ratner said. This “insularity” results in “lost opportunities on the path for psychoanalysis to become part of the conversation regarding mass denial and mass nonadherence to medical advice.”

He noted that change is afoot in the psychoanalytic community. The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) has begun to “empower constituents” who seek greater “integration with experimental science and greater involvement with public health.”

To that end, Ratner suggests a “new partnership” between three fields that have until now been disparate: experimental psychology, public health, and psychoanalysis.

Cognitive scientists have studied and documented denial, attributing it to “anxiety’s power to compromise rational thought,” but their approach has not focused on the psychoanalytic model of denial as a defense mechanism, Ratner observed.

Mark Smaller, PhD, past president of APsaA and board member of the International Psychoanalytical Association, elaborated.

“From a psychoanalytic perspective, I am interested in how a defense mechanism functions for individuals and groups,” Smaller told Medscape Medical News.

Denial as a defense mechanism often arises, whether in individuals or groups, from a sense of helplessness, explained Smaller, who is also the chair of the department of public advocacy at APsaA.

“People can only tolerate a certain amount of helplessness – in fact, I would suggest as an analyst that helplessness is the most difficult feeling for humans to come to terms with,” he said.

Helplessness can contribute to trauma and “I think we have a mass case of traumatic helplessness in our country right now because of the pandemic.”

Some people respond to a sense of helplessness with depression or hopelessness, while others “try to integrate the impact of the pandemic by focusing on things over which they have control, like wearing a mask, social distancing, and avoiding places with large numbers of people where the virus can be easily transmitted,” said Smaller.

However, “what seems to have occurred in our country is that, although many people have focused on what we do have control of, a large segment of our population are acting as if COVID-19 doesn’t exist, and we have leadership supporting this denial,” he added.
 

Is “denial” evidence-based?

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Richard McAnulty, PhD, associate professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte expressed skepticism about the psychoanalytic view of denial, and its potential role in addressing the pandemic.

“A key criticism of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic viewpoints is that many – including the concept of a subconscious mind – are theoretical, not open to empirical research, and not measurable; and one of the most fundamental requirements in science is that all your constructs are measurable.”

For this reason, this approach is “limited in usefulness, although it might be an interesting source of speculation,” said McAnulty.

Ratner disagreed, noting that there is research corroborating the existence of an unconscious mind. Noted analyst Carl Jung, Ratner pointed out, conducted “some great experiments to prove some of the central tenets of psychoanalysis using word associations.”

Jung found that, if individuals were challenged with words that evoked painful associations, it took them longer to arrive at the answer to the test. They also made more mistakes.

Jung’s research “goes back to a core idea of psychoanalysis, which is that painful or difficult thoughts and feelings get distorted, pushed out of consciousness, forgotten, delayed, or suppressed,” Ratner said. These responses might account for “what we’re seeing the U.S. that people are resorting to irrational thinking without being aware of it.”

McAnulty suggested that the psychodynamic idea of denial as a defense mechanism is not relevant to mass nonadherence to pandemic-related medical advice.

Rather, the denial stems from “schemas and belief systems about the world, how people should operate and behave, and the role of government and the medical establishment,” he said.

“When certain recommendations are discrepant with the world view, it creates dissonance or a mismatch and the person will try to reconcile the mismatch,” McAnulty continued. “One way to do that is to say that these recommendations are invalid because they violate the individual’s political beliefs, world view, or religious ideas.”

Ultimately, “it depends on how we define denial,” said McAnulty. “If it means dismissing information that doesn’t fit an existing belief system, that’s denial, but the psychodynamic meaning of ‘denial’ is much deeper than that.”

Smaller, the past president of APsaA, emphasized the importance of empathy when addressing the public. “Psychoanalysts bring empathy to irrationality. Having a psychoanalyst as a team member can help public health officials to communicate better and craft the understanding of anxiety and fear into their message.”

Ratner said he is “not proposing a simplistic silver bullet as an answer to a very complex, multifaceted problem of nonadherence to medical advice.”

Instead, he is “proposing something that hasn’t happened yet, which is more research and more conversation, with psychoanalysis as part of the conversation, because the notion of denial is so relevant, despite how many other factors are involved.”

Ratner, Gandhi, Smaller, and McAnulty have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ratner is the author of The Psychoanalyst’s Aversion to Proof and the medical textbook Concepts in Medical Physiology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Using principles of psychoanalysis to craft public health messaging may be a novel and effective way of increasing adherence to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts say.

In a letter published online Oct. 19 in The Lancet, coauthors Austin Ratner, MD, and Nisarg Gandhi, believe that, as expert communicators, psychoanalysts should be part of the public health care team to help battle the pandemic.

“The idea of using psychoanalysis in a public health setting is relatively unheard of,” Ratner, the author of a book titled “The Psychoanalyst’s Aversion to Proof,” told Medscape Medical News. Ratner earned his MD at John Hopkins School of Medicine but left medicine to become an author. Gandhi is a clinical research intern at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, New Jersey.

Psychoanalysis postulates that defense mechanisms, such as denial, may play an important role in nonadherence to public health guidance regarding the pandemic, Ratner said.

“Denial is a Freudian concept and we can see how it is rearing its ugly head in a number of prominent ways all around us, including nonadherence to medical advice regarding COVID-19, as well as climate change and politics.

“By understanding that fear and anxiety underpin a lot of denial, the psychoanalytic viewpoint can help influence public health officials in recognizing the fear and anxiety, how to talk about the threat [of the pandemic], and what can be done about it,” he added.
 

“A new partnership”

“Psychoanalysts have historically resisted collaboration with disciplines such as social and experimental psychology,” Ratner said. This “insularity” results in “lost opportunities on the path for psychoanalysis to become part of the conversation regarding mass denial and mass nonadherence to medical advice.”

He noted that change is afoot in the psychoanalytic community. The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) has begun to “empower constituents” who seek greater “integration with experimental science and greater involvement with public health.”

To that end, Ratner suggests a “new partnership” between three fields that have until now been disparate: experimental psychology, public health, and psychoanalysis.

Cognitive scientists have studied and documented denial, attributing it to “anxiety’s power to compromise rational thought,” but their approach has not focused on the psychoanalytic model of denial as a defense mechanism, Ratner observed.

Mark Smaller, PhD, past president of APsaA and board member of the International Psychoanalytical Association, elaborated.

“From a psychoanalytic perspective, I am interested in how a defense mechanism functions for individuals and groups,” Smaller told Medscape Medical News.

Denial as a defense mechanism often arises, whether in individuals or groups, from a sense of helplessness, explained Smaller, who is also the chair of the department of public advocacy at APsaA.

“People can only tolerate a certain amount of helplessness – in fact, I would suggest as an analyst that helplessness is the most difficult feeling for humans to come to terms with,” he said.

Helplessness can contribute to trauma and “I think we have a mass case of traumatic helplessness in our country right now because of the pandemic.”

Some people respond to a sense of helplessness with depression or hopelessness, while others “try to integrate the impact of the pandemic by focusing on things over which they have control, like wearing a mask, social distancing, and avoiding places with large numbers of people where the virus can be easily transmitted,” said Smaller.

However, “what seems to have occurred in our country is that, although many people have focused on what we do have control of, a large segment of our population are acting as if COVID-19 doesn’t exist, and we have leadership supporting this denial,” he added.
 

Is “denial” evidence-based?

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Richard McAnulty, PhD, associate professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte expressed skepticism about the psychoanalytic view of denial, and its potential role in addressing the pandemic.

“A key criticism of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic viewpoints is that many – including the concept of a subconscious mind – are theoretical, not open to empirical research, and not measurable; and one of the most fundamental requirements in science is that all your constructs are measurable.”

For this reason, this approach is “limited in usefulness, although it might be an interesting source of speculation,” said McAnulty.

Ratner disagreed, noting that there is research corroborating the existence of an unconscious mind. Noted analyst Carl Jung, Ratner pointed out, conducted “some great experiments to prove some of the central tenets of psychoanalysis using word associations.”

Jung found that, if individuals were challenged with words that evoked painful associations, it took them longer to arrive at the answer to the test. They also made more mistakes.

Jung’s research “goes back to a core idea of psychoanalysis, which is that painful or difficult thoughts and feelings get distorted, pushed out of consciousness, forgotten, delayed, or suppressed,” Ratner said. These responses might account for “what we’re seeing the U.S. that people are resorting to irrational thinking without being aware of it.”

McAnulty suggested that the psychodynamic idea of denial as a defense mechanism is not relevant to mass nonadherence to pandemic-related medical advice.

Rather, the denial stems from “schemas and belief systems about the world, how people should operate and behave, and the role of government and the medical establishment,” he said.

“When certain recommendations are discrepant with the world view, it creates dissonance or a mismatch and the person will try to reconcile the mismatch,” McAnulty continued. “One way to do that is to say that these recommendations are invalid because they violate the individual’s political beliefs, world view, or religious ideas.”

Ultimately, “it depends on how we define denial,” said McAnulty. “If it means dismissing information that doesn’t fit an existing belief system, that’s denial, but the psychodynamic meaning of ‘denial’ is much deeper than that.”

Smaller, the past president of APsaA, emphasized the importance of empathy when addressing the public. “Psychoanalysts bring empathy to irrationality. Having a psychoanalyst as a team member can help public health officials to communicate better and craft the understanding of anxiety and fear into their message.”

Ratner said he is “not proposing a simplistic silver bullet as an answer to a very complex, multifaceted problem of nonadherence to medical advice.”

Instead, he is “proposing something that hasn’t happened yet, which is more research and more conversation, with psychoanalysis as part of the conversation, because the notion of denial is so relevant, despite how many other factors are involved.”

Ratner, Gandhi, Smaller, and McAnulty have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ratner is the author of The Psychoanalyst’s Aversion to Proof and the medical textbook Concepts in Medical Physiology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Using principles of psychoanalysis to craft public health messaging may be a novel and effective way of increasing adherence to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts say.

In a letter published online Oct. 19 in The Lancet, coauthors Austin Ratner, MD, and Nisarg Gandhi, believe that, as expert communicators, psychoanalysts should be part of the public health care team to help battle the pandemic.

“The idea of using psychoanalysis in a public health setting is relatively unheard of,” Ratner, the author of a book titled “The Psychoanalyst’s Aversion to Proof,” told Medscape Medical News. Ratner earned his MD at John Hopkins School of Medicine but left medicine to become an author. Gandhi is a clinical research intern at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, New Jersey.

Psychoanalysis postulates that defense mechanisms, such as denial, may play an important role in nonadherence to public health guidance regarding the pandemic, Ratner said.

“Denial is a Freudian concept and we can see how it is rearing its ugly head in a number of prominent ways all around us, including nonadherence to medical advice regarding COVID-19, as well as climate change and politics.

“By understanding that fear and anxiety underpin a lot of denial, the psychoanalytic viewpoint can help influence public health officials in recognizing the fear and anxiety, how to talk about the threat [of the pandemic], and what can be done about it,” he added.
 

“A new partnership”

“Psychoanalysts have historically resisted collaboration with disciplines such as social and experimental psychology,” Ratner said. This “insularity” results in “lost opportunities on the path for psychoanalysis to become part of the conversation regarding mass denial and mass nonadherence to medical advice.”

He noted that change is afoot in the psychoanalytic community. The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) has begun to “empower constituents” who seek greater “integration with experimental science and greater involvement with public health.”

To that end, Ratner suggests a “new partnership” between three fields that have until now been disparate: experimental psychology, public health, and psychoanalysis.

Cognitive scientists have studied and documented denial, attributing it to “anxiety’s power to compromise rational thought,” but their approach has not focused on the psychoanalytic model of denial as a defense mechanism, Ratner observed.

Mark Smaller, PhD, past president of APsaA and board member of the International Psychoanalytical Association, elaborated.

“From a psychoanalytic perspective, I am interested in how a defense mechanism functions for individuals and groups,” Smaller told Medscape Medical News.

Denial as a defense mechanism often arises, whether in individuals or groups, from a sense of helplessness, explained Smaller, who is also the chair of the department of public advocacy at APsaA.

“People can only tolerate a certain amount of helplessness – in fact, I would suggest as an analyst that helplessness is the most difficult feeling for humans to come to terms with,” he said.

Helplessness can contribute to trauma and “I think we have a mass case of traumatic helplessness in our country right now because of the pandemic.”

Some people respond to a sense of helplessness with depression or hopelessness, while others “try to integrate the impact of the pandemic by focusing on things over which they have control, like wearing a mask, social distancing, and avoiding places with large numbers of people where the virus can be easily transmitted,” said Smaller.

However, “what seems to have occurred in our country is that, although many people have focused on what we do have control of, a large segment of our population are acting as if COVID-19 doesn’t exist, and we have leadership supporting this denial,” he added.
 

Is “denial” evidence-based?

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Richard McAnulty, PhD, associate professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte expressed skepticism about the psychoanalytic view of denial, and its potential role in addressing the pandemic.

“A key criticism of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic viewpoints is that many – including the concept of a subconscious mind – are theoretical, not open to empirical research, and not measurable; and one of the most fundamental requirements in science is that all your constructs are measurable.”

For this reason, this approach is “limited in usefulness, although it might be an interesting source of speculation,” said McAnulty.

Ratner disagreed, noting that there is research corroborating the existence of an unconscious mind. Noted analyst Carl Jung, Ratner pointed out, conducted “some great experiments to prove some of the central tenets of psychoanalysis using word associations.”

Jung found that, if individuals were challenged with words that evoked painful associations, it took them longer to arrive at the answer to the test. They also made more mistakes.

Jung’s research “goes back to a core idea of psychoanalysis, which is that painful or difficult thoughts and feelings get distorted, pushed out of consciousness, forgotten, delayed, or suppressed,” Ratner said. These responses might account for “what we’re seeing the U.S. that people are resorting to irrational thinking without being aware of it.”

McAnulty suggested that the psychodynamic idea of denial as a defense mechanism is not relevant to mass nonadherence to pandemic-related medical advice.

Rather, the denial stems from “schemas and belief systems about the world, how people should operate and behave, and the role of government and the medical establishment,” he said.

“When certain recommendations are discrepant with the world view, it creates dissonance or a mismatch and the person will try to reconcile the mismatch,” McAnulty continued. “One way to do that is to say that these recommendations are invalid because they violate the individual’s political beliefs, world view, or religious ideas.”

Ultimately, “it depends on how we define denial,” said McAnulty. “If it means dismissing information that doesn’t fit an existing belief system, that’s denial, but the psychodynamic meaning of ‘denial’ is much deeper than that.”

Smaller, the past president of APsaA, emphasized the importance of empathy when addressing the public. “Psychoanalysts bring empathy to irrationality. Having a psychoanalyst as a team member can help public health officials to communicate better and craft the understanding of anxiety and fear into their message.”

Ratner said he is “not proposing a simplistic silver bullet as an answer to a very complex, multifaceted problem of nonadherence to medical advice.”

Instead, he is “proposing something that hasn’t happened yet, which is more research and more conversation, with psychoanalysis as part of the conversation, because the notion of denial is so relevant, despite how many other factors are involved.”

Ratner, Gandhi, Smaller, and McAnulty have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ratner is the author of The Psychoanalyst’s Aversion to Proof and the medical textbook Concepts in Medical Physiology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

Home spirometry has become increasingly used among cystic fibrosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and new research suggests that home devices perform reasonably well. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) values were a bit lower than values seen in clinical spirometry performed in the same patient at a nearby time point, but the procedure reliably picked up decreases in FEV₁, potentially helping patients and clinicians spot exacerbations early.

“Home spirometry was sort of a curiosity that was slowly working its way into cystic fibrosis research in 2019, and then all of a sudden in 2020 it became front and center as the only way to continue with clinical monitoring and research in many cases,” Alexander Paynter, MS, a biostatistician at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Therapeutic Development Network Coordinating Center, said during a talk at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

To better determine how closely home spirometry matches clinical spirometry, Mr. Paynter and his colleagues analyzed data from the eICE study, which included 267 cystic fibrosis patients aged 14 and over at 14 cystic fibrosis centers. They were randomized to use home spirometry as an early intervention to detect exacerbations, or to continue usual clinic care with visits to the clinic every 3 months. The dataset includes twice-weekly home spirometry values, with a full-year of follow-up data. The researchers compared the home spirometry data to the clinical data closest in time to it. Clinic spirometry data with no corresponding home data within 7 days were discarded.

There was an estimated difference of –2.01 mL between home and clinic tests, with home spirometry producing lower values (95% confidence interval, –3.56 to –0.45). “There is actually a bias in home spirometry as compared to clinic spirometry,” concluded Mr. Paynter.

One explanation for lower values in home spirometry is that users are inexperienced with the device. If that’s true, then agreement should improve over time, but the researchers didn’t see strong evidence of that. Among 44 patients who completed five clinical visits, there was a difference of –2.97 (standard deviation [SD], 10.51) at baseline, –1.66 at 3 months (SD, 13.49), –3.7 at 6 months (SD, 12.44), –0.86 at 9 months (SD, 13.73), and –0.53 at 12 months (SD, 13.35). Though there was improvement over time, “we don’t find a lot of evidence that this bias completely resolves,” said Mr. Paynter.

In fact, a more likely explanation is the presence of coaching by a technician during clinical spirometry, according to Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center at New York University. “When they’re doing it at home, they don’t do it with the same effort, so I think that coaching through telemedicine during the home spirometry would make that difference disappear,” he said when asked to comment on the study.

SOURCE: Alex Paynter et al. NACFC 2020. Poster 643.

Home spirometry has become increasingly used among cystic fibrosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and new research suggests that home devices perform reasonably well. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) values were a bit lower than values seen in clinical spirometry performed in the same patient at a nearby time point, but the procedure reliably picked up decreases in FEV₁, potentially helping patients and clinicians spot exacerbations early.

“Home spirometry was sort of a curiosity that was slowly working its way into cystic fibrosis research in 2019, and then all of a sudden in 2020 it became front and center as the only way to continue with clinical monitoring and research in many cases,” Alexander Paynter, MS, a biostatistician at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Therapeutic Development Network Coordinating Center, said during a talk at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

To better determine how closely home spirometry matches clinical spirometry, Mr. Paynter and his colleagues analyzed data from the eICE study, which included 267 cystic fibrosis patients aged 14 and over at 14 cystic fibrosis centers. They were randomized to use home spirometry as an early intervention to detect exacerbations, or to continue usual clinic care with visits to the clinic every 3 months. The dataset includes twice-weekly home spirometry values, with a full-year of follow-up data. The researchers compared the home spirometry data to the clinical data closest in time to it. Clinic spirometry data with no corresponding home data within 7 days were discarded.

There was an estimated difference of –2.01 mL between home and clinic tests, with home spirometry producing lower values (95% confidence interval, –3.56 to –0.45). “There is actually a bias in home spirometry as compared to clinic spirometry,” concluded Mr. Paynter.

One explanation for lower values in home spirometry is that users are inexperienced with the device. If that’s true, then agreement should improve over time, but the researchers didn’t see strong evidence of that. Among 44 patients who completed five clinical visits, there was a difference of –2.97 (standard deviation [SD], 10.51) at baseline, –1.66 at 3 months (SD, 13.49), –3.7 at 6 months (SD, 12.44), –0.86 at 9 months (SD, 13.73), and –0.53 at 12 months (SD, 13.35). Though there was improvement over time, “we don’t find a lot of evidence that this bias completely resolves,” said Mr. Paynter.

In fact, a more likely explanation is the presence of coaching by a technician during clinical spirometry, according to Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center at New York University. “When they’re doing it at home, they don’t do it with the same effort, so I think that coaching through telemedicine during the home spirometry would make that difference disappear,” he said when asked to comment on the study.

SOURCE: Alex Paynter et al. NACFC 2020. Poster 643.

Home spirometry has become increasingly used among cystic fibrosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and new research suggests that home devices perform reasonably well. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) values were a bit lower than values seen in clinical spirometry performed in the same patient at a nearby time point, but the procedure reliably picked up decreases in FEV₁, potentially helping patients and clinicians spot exacerbations early.

“Home spirometry was sort of a curiosity that was slowly working its way into cystic fibrosis research in 2019, and then all of a sudden in 2020 it became front and center as the only way to continue with clinical monitoring and research in many cases,” Alexander Paynter, MS, a biostatistician at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Therapeutic Development Network Coordinating Center, said during a talk at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

To better determine how closely home spirometry matches clinical spirometry, Mr. Paynter and his colleagues analyzed data from the eICE study, which included 267 cystic fibrosis patients aged 14 and over at 14 cystic fibrosis centers. They were randomized to use home spirometry as an early intervention to detect exacerbations, or to continue usual clinic care with visits to the clinic every 3 months. The dataset includes twice-weekly home spirometry values, with a full-year of follow-up data. The researchers compared the home spirometry data to the clinical data closest in time to it. Clinic spirometry data with no corresponding home data within 7 days were discarded.

There was an estimated difference of –2.01 mL between home and clinic tests, with home spirometry producing lower values (95% confidence interval, –3.56 to –0.45). “There is actually a bias in home spirometry as compared to clinic spirometry,” concluded Mr. Paynter.

One explanation for lower values in home spirometry is that users are inexperienced with the device. If that’s true, then agreement should improve over time, but the researchers didn’t see strong evidence of that. Among 44 patients who completed five clinical visits, there was a difference of –2.97 (standard deviation [SD], 10.51) at baseline, –1.66 at 3 months (SD, 13.49), –3.7 at 6 months (SD, 12.44), –0.86 at 9 months (SD, 13.73), and –0.53 at 12 months (SD, 13.35). Though there was improvement over time, “we don’t find a lot of evidence that this bias completely resolves,” said Mr. Paynter.

In fact, a more likely explanation is the presence of coaching by a technician during clinical spirometry, according to Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center at New York University. “When they’re doing it at home, they don’t do it with the same effort, so I think that coaching through telemedicine during the home spirometry would make that difference disappear,” he said when asked to comment on the study.

SOURCE: Alex Paynter et al. NACFC 2020. Poster 643.

Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.

In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.

It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.

Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.

The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
 

Molecular sleuthing

The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.

The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.

D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.

The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.

The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.

The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.

Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.

Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
 

Surveillance ongoing

“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.

Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.

They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
 

Further validation warranted

“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.

Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.

However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.

“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said. 

Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.