User login
In Case You Missed It: COVID
COVID-19 ranks as a leading cause of death in United States
Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.
“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”
Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.
By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.
For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.
Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.
“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”
The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.
“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”
The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.
“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”
Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.
“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”
For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.
“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”
Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.
By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.
For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.
Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.
“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”
The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.
“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”
The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.
“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”
Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.
“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”
For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.
“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”
Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.
By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.
For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.
Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.
“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”
The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.
“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”
The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.
“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”
Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.
“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”
For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Building (or rebuilding) trust amid vaccine hesitancy
Nearly 10 months since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, ICUs across the country are reaching maximum capacity and hospitalizations are outnumbering the available providers and staff to care for them. Clinicians everywhere are becoming exhausted and frustrated, and the world is all asking when an end to this pandemic will be in sight? The Food and Drug Administration issued emergency authorization for two multidose COVID-19 vaccines that are now being deployed across the country.
At this writing, 2.8 million Americans have received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose, a number far short of the projected 100 million. The limited production capacity and tiered distribution are the main determinants of who gets the vaccine and when, but a third and extremely important factor in whether people will choose to get vaccinated is their level of awareness of and trust in the scientific and medical processes behind wide-scale vaccination.
As medical professionals, many of us wouldn’t hesitate to get vaccinated against a pandemic virus. Concerns about safety and the integrity of the COVID-19 vaccine development process in light of the “warp speed” of its production has many Americans concerned about getting vaccinated. We may not be able to relate to some patients’ reluctance to receive a vaccine that has been confirmed by phase 3 clinical trials with collectively over 66,000 participants (nearly 10% African American in each study) to have an effectiveness of over 90%. We are so intimately familiar with the vaccine development process, the medical terminology used to describe these results and the effectiveness of vaccines overall in eliminating infectious diseases like polio and smallpox. To many of us, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may be considered a no-brainer. However, and especially for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) patients with sickle cell disease or other hematologic disorders, the history of medical racism and a pattern of negative health care experiences have sown a distrust of the medical research community that spurs vaccine hesitancy despite the far-reaching impact of this pandemic.
I asked an African American friend of mine who is a pediatrician if she would get the vaccine, to which she replied: “People of color are already aware of the experiments and trials performed on our communities without the knowledge and informed consent of those being tested – many of whom were children, impoverished or disenfranchised – so while I personally will get vaccinated, I understand why some wouldn’t be as trusting.”
In December 2020, a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a primary factor behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black respondents was the fear of catching the virus from the vaccine.1 While this is an understandable concern for the general public, there needs to be a wide-reaching patient education effort to teach about the vaccine and how it was designed to work, (especially around the use of messenger RNA technology) so as to put such fears to rest and empower patients to go into this process as knowledgeable advocates for their own health.
With so many sources of information about the pandemic, there are just as many sources of misinformation being spouted by biased outlets on all sides of the political spectrum.
Physicians are most likely to influence their patients’ willingness to take the flu vaccine, accept treatment recommendations as well as potentially accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Our responsibility as care providers is to help our patients filter through the information and provide them with the tools, they need to understand what is fact and what is fiction. We are to answer their questions and concerns, correct any misunderstandings, and address their individual reasons for hesitancy. We must also pay particular attention to our BIPOC patient populations who may have unique reasons for declining the vaccine, compared with the general population. Our conversations should not only reassure patients that the vaccines currently available won’t give them COVID-19, but also address concerns about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and reiterate that no corners were cut in the development and approval process.
As a hematologist I have had to become very comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations with my patients about the history of maltreatment and discrimination toward minorities in health care, while reassuring them of the current attempts to right those wrongs and the major wins we have had in research when it comes to adapting therapeutics to diverse populations for optimal outcomes.
The conversation about vaccine hesitancy should be held with patience and humility, acknowledging the past and validating patient concerns that will influence their decisions. We need to be more humane and relatable, and use real-world language to clearly share the facts without buzzwords and jargon that may confuse or even reinforce perceptions of lack of transparency.
I received my COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 29, 2020, and my experience was similar to that of anyone else’s. I had the same concerns most of my patients and colleagues have expressed, but when I saw my sister share her “postvax selfie” on WhatsApp and discussed her experience with her, I felt more comfortable. I then spoke with my allergist, my primary care provider, my husband, and other people in my personal circles before I scheduled my appointment. After my first dose, I called my sister-in-law, a nurse in Canada, who expressed the same concerns that I had and was about to cancel her appointment for that afternoon. I shared my selfie, I shared my experience, and that afternoon she got her vaccine.
The best way to restore a fundamental trust in science and medicine in our patients is to relate to them as humans. Our patients need to know we have the same concerns and fears that they do and that sometimes we have just as many questions too. Communicating openly and authentically, not only with our patients but in all our spheres of influence, can help rebuild the relationship between the public and the health care system. By giving them a glimpse of our humanity, we can support each other as we hopefully eventually see an end to this pandemic.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.
References
1. www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/
Nearly 10 months since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, ICUs across the country are reaching maximum capacity and hospitalizations are outnumbering the available providers and staff to care for them. Clinicians everywhere are becoming exhausted and frustrated, and the world is all asking when an end to this pandemic will be in sight? The Food and Drug Administration issued emergency authorization for two multidose COVID-19 vaccines that are now being deployed across the country.
At this writing, 2.8 million Americans have received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose, a number far short of the projected 100 million. The limited production capacity and tiered distribution are the main determinants of who gets the vaccine and when, but a third and extremely important factor in whether people will choose to get vaccinated is their level of awareness of and trust in the scientific and medical processes behind wide-scale vaccination.
As medical professionals, many of us wouldn’t hesitate to get vaccinated against a pandemic virus. Concerns about safety and the integrity of the COVID-19 vaccine development process in light of the “warp speed” of its production has many Americans concerned about getting vaccinated. We may not be able to relate to some patients’ reluctance to receive a vaccine that has been confirmed by phase 3 clinical trials with collectively over 66,000 participants (nearly 10% African American in each study) to have an effectiveness of over 90%. We are so intimately familiar with the vaccine development process, the medical terminology used to describe these results and the effectiveness of vaccines overall in eliminating infectious diseases like polio and smallpox. To many of us, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may be considered a no-brainer. However, and especially for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) patients with sickle cell disease or other hematologic disorders, the history of medical racism and a pattern of negative health care experiences have sown a distrust of the medical research community that spurs vaccine hesitancy despite the far-reaching impact of this pandemic.
I asked an African American friend of mine who is a pediatrician if she would get the vaccine, to which she replied: “People of color are already aware of the experiments and trials performed on our communities without the knowledge and informed consent of those being tested – many of whom were children, impoverished or disenfranchised – so while I personally will get vaccinated, I understand why some wouldn’t be as trusting.”
In December 2020, a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a primary factor behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black respondents was the fear of catching the virus from the vaccine.1 While this is an understandable concern for the general public, there needs to be a wide-reaching patient education effort to teach about the vaccine and how it was designed to work, (especially around the use of messenger RNA technology) so as to put such fears to rest and empower patients to go into this process as knowledgeable advocates for their own health.
With so many sources of information about the pandemic, there are just as many sources of misinformation being spouted by biased outlets on all sides of the political spectrum.
Physicians are most likely to influence their patients’ willingness to take the flu vaccine, accept treatment recommendations as well as potentially accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Our responsibility as care providers is to help our patients filter through the information and provide them with the tools, they need to understand what is fact and what is fiction. We are to answer their questions and concerns, correct any misunderstandings, and address their individual reasons for hesitancy. We must also pay particular attention to our BIPOC patient populations who may have unique reasons for declining the vaccine, compared with the general population. Our conversations should not only reassure patients that the vaccines currently available won’t give them COVID-19, but also address concerns about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and reiterate that no corners were cut in the development and approval process.
As a hematologist I have had to become very comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations with my patients about the history of maltreatment and discrimination toward minorities in health care, while reassuring them of the current attempts to right those wrongs and the major wins we have had in research when it comes to adapting therapeutics to diverse populations for optimal outcomes.
The conversation about vaccine hesitancy should be held with patience and humility, acknowledging the past and validating patient concerns that will influence their decisions. We need to be more humane and relatable, and use real-world language to clearly share the facts without buzzwords and jargon that may confuse or even reinforce perceptions of lack of transparency.
I received my COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 29, 2020, and my experience was similar to that of anyone else’s. I had the same concerns most of my patients and colleagues have expressed, but when I saw my sister share her “postvax selfie” on WhatsApp and discussed her experience with her, I felt more comfortable. I then spoke with my allergist, my primary care provider, my husband, and other people in my personal circles before I scheduled my appointment. After my first dose, I called my sister-in-law, a nurse in Canada, who expressed the same concerns that I had and was about to cancel her appointment for that afternoon. I shared my selfie, I shared my experience, and that afternoon she got her vaccine.
The best way to restore a fundamental trust in science and medicine in our patients is to relate to them as humans. Our patients need to know we have the same concerns and fears that they do and that sometimes we have just as many questions too. Communicating openly and authentically, not only with our patients but in all our spheres of influence, can help rebuild the relationship between the public and the health care system. By giving them a glimpse of our humanity, we can support each other as we hopefully eventually see an end to this pandemic.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.
References
1. www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/
Nearly 10 months since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, ICUs across the country are reaching maximum capacity and hospitalizations are outnumbering the available providers and staff to care for them. Clinicians everywhere are becoming exhausted and frustrated, and the world is all asking when an end to this pandemic will be in sight? The Food and Drug Administration issued emergency authorization for two multidose COVID-19 vaccines that are now being deployed across the country.
At this writing, 2.8 million Americans have received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose, a number far short of the projected 100 million. The limited production capacity and tiered distribution are the main determinants of who gets the vaccine and when, but a third and extremely important factor in whether people will choose to get vaccinated is their level of awareness of and trust in the scientific and medical processes behind wide-scale vaccination.
As medical professionals, many of us wouldn’t hesitate to get vaccinated against a pandemic virus. Concerns about safety and the integrity of the COVID-19 vaccine development process in light of the “warp speed” of its production has many Americans concerned about getting vaccinated. We may not be able to relate to some patients’ reluctance to receive a vaccine that has been confirmed by phase 3 clinical trials with collectively over 66,000 participants (nearly 10% African American in each study) to have an effectiveness of over 90%. We are so intimately familiar with the vaccine development process, the medical terminology used to describe these results and the effectiveness of vaccines overall in eliminating infectious diseases like polio and smallpox. To many of us, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may be considered a no-brainer. However, and especially for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) patients with sickle cell disease or other hematologic disorders, the history of medical racism and a pattern of negative health care experiences have sown a distrust of the medical research community that spurs vaccine hesitancy despite the far-reaching impact of this pandemic.
I asked an African American friend of mine who is a pediatrician if she would get the vaccine, to which she replied: “People of color are already aware of the experiments and trials performed on our communities without the knowledge and informed consent of those being tested – many of whom were children, impoverished or disenfranchised – so while I personally will get vaccinated, I understand why some wouldn’t be as trusting.”
In December 2020, a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a primary factor behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black respondents was the fear of catching the virus from the vaccine.1 While this is an understandable concern for the general public, there needs to be a wide-reaching patient education effort to teach about the vaccine and how it was designed to work, (especially around the use of messenger RNA technology) so as to put such fears to rest and empower patients to go into this process as knowledgeable advocates for their own health.
With so many sources of information about the pandemic, there are just as many sources of misinformation being spouted by biased outlets on all sides of the political spectrum.
Physicians are most likely to influence their patients’ willingness to take the flu vaccine, accept treatment recommendations as well as potentially accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Our responsibility as care providers is to help our patients filter through the information and provide them with the tools, they need to understand what is fact and what is fiction. We are to answer their questions and concerns, correct any misunderstandings, and address their individual reasons for hesitancy. We must also pay particular attention to our BIPOC patient populations who may have unique reasons for declining the vaccine, compared with the general population. Our conversations should not only reassure patients that the vaccines currently available won’t give them COVID-19, but also address concerns about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and reiterate that no corners were cut in the development and approval process.
As a hematologist I have had to become very comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations with my patients about the history of maltreatment and discrimination toward minorities in health care, while reassuring them of the current attempts to right those wrongs and the major wins we have had in research when it comes to adapting therapeutics to diverse populations for optimal outcomes.
The conversation about vaccine hesitancy should be held with patience and humility, acknowledging the past and validating patient concerns that will influence their decisions. We need to be more humane and relatable, and use real-world language to clearly share the facts without buzzwords and jargon that may confuse or even reinforce perceptions of lack of transparency.
I received my COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 29, 2020, and my experience was similar to that of anyone else’s. I had the same concerns most of my patients and colleagues have expressed, but when I saw my sister share her “postvax selfie” on WhatsApp and discussed her experience with her, I felt more comfortable. I then spoke with my allergist, my primary care provider, my husband, and other people in my personal circles before I scheduled my appointment. After my first dose, I called my sister-in-law, a nurse in Canada, who expressed the same concerns that I had and was about to cancel her appointment for that afternoon. I shared my selfie, I shared my experience, and that afternoon she got her vaccine.
The best way to restore a fundamental trust in science and medicine in our patients is to relate to them as humans. Our patients need to know we have the same concerns and fears that they do and that sometimes we have just as many questions too. Communicating openly and authentically, not only with our patients but in all our spheres of influence, can help rebuild the relationship between the public and the health care system. By giving them a glimpse of our humanity, we can support each other as we hopefully eventually see an end to this pandemic.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.
References
1. www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/
Collective trauma could lead to posttraumatic growth
Reflections for 2021
When we went to medical school, how many of us thought we would practice through a pandemic? For most of us, 2020 was the most challenging professional year of our lives. As a psychiatrist, I found it particularly odd to be struggling with the same issues as all of my patients and to have all my patients in crisis at the same time. I was repeatedly asked by friends, “How are your patients doing?” My reply, “About the same as the rest of us.” After a period of adapting, I felt truly blessed to be able to practice online. I know many of my colleagues did not have that luxury, and the stress you endured is hard to fathom.
Yet, as Friedrich Nietzsche said in so many words, “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger,” and here we are in a new year. As we enter 2021, we know so much more about COVID-19 than we did mere months ago, and many of us have been fortunate enough to be vaccinated already.
We should be very proud of our medical and scientific community, which has worked so hard to prevent and treat COVID-19. It is indeed a miracle of modern medicine that two vaccines made their way through development to distribution in under a year. It is a great relief that health care workers are first in line: Of the 4 million vaccine doses given worldwide, 2 million were to U.S. medical personnel. We can now track the number of people vaccinated around the globe.
Yet, “the darkest hour is just before the dawn.” We are currently in the riskiest part of the pandemic, and we must continue to work hard.
As 2021 progresses, we can expect to begin the long recovery process. We know we are innately wired to adapt to adversity and are therefore resilient. The key is to tap into this wiring by developing behaviors, habits, and strategies that support us.
Posttraumatic growth (PTG) is a theory in mental health that explains a kind of transformation following trauma. It was developed by psychologists Richard Tedeschi, PhD, and Lawrence Calhoun, PhD, in the mid-1990s. They studied how people experienced positive growth following adversity. Dr. Tedeschi has said: “People develop new understandings of themselves, the world they live in, how to relate to other people, the kind of future they might have and a better understanding of how to live life.” One-half to two-thirds of individuals experiencing trauma will experience PTG. Given that our entire profession has gone through this collective trauma, far better times may indeed be ahead.
Resilience expert Eva Selhub, MD, suggests cultivating these six pillars:
- Physical vitality: The toll of 2020 has been enormous. If we are to rebound, we must care for ourselves. In our training, we were taught to put our health aside and work grueling hours. But to recover from trauma, we must attend to our own needs. Even after we are vaccinated, we must keep our nutritional status and immunity functioning at optimal levels. Let’s not get COVID-19 complacency. Clearly, health matters most. Ours included!
- Mental toughness: We made it through an incredibly grueling year, and we had to “build it as we sailed.” We figured out how to save as many lives as we could and simultaneously keep ourselves and our families safe. We have seen things previously unimaginable. We have adjusted to telemedicine. We have lived with far fewer pleasures. We have cultivated multiple ways to tame our anxieties. The year 2020 is one we can be proud of for ourselves and our colleagues. We have come a long way in a short time.
- Emotional balance: Anxiety and depression were easy to fall into in 2020. But as the pandemic subsides, the pendulum will swing the other way. The 1918 pandemic gave rise to the Roaring Twenties. What will the next chapter in our civilization bring?
- Loving and strong connections. Our relationships are what give depth and meaning to our lives, and these relationships are crucial now so we can heal. How can we nourish our connections? What toll has the pandemic taken on those closest to you? Did some friends or family step up and help? Can we move out of our caretaker role and allow others to care for us?
- Spiritual connection: Facing so much grief and suffering, we have had an opportunity to look at our own lives from a different perspective. It has been an important year for reflection. How can we cultivate a deeper appreciation recognizing that every day is truly a gift? Did you find more purpose in your work last year? What sustained you in your time of need?
- Inspiring leadership: As health care professionals, we must set an example. We must show our patients and our families how resilient we can be. Let’s grow from trauma and avoid succumbing to depression, self-destructive tendencies, and divisiveness. We must continue to care for ourselves, our patients, and our community and work together to ensure a brighter and safer future for all.
Wishing you a safe, happy and healthy 2021.
“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”
– Carl Jung, PhD
Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Mimosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.
Reflections for 2021
Reflections for 2021
When we went to medical school, how many of us thought we would practice through a pandemic? For most of us, 2020 was the most challenging professional year of our lives. As a psychiatrist, I found it particularly odd to be struggling with the same issues as all of my patients and to have all my patients in crisis at the same time. I was repeatedly asked by friends, “How are your patients doing?” My reply, “About the same as the rest of us.” After a period of adapting, I felt truly blessed to be able to practice online. I know many of my colleagues did not have that luxury, and the stress you endured is hard to fathom.
Yet, as Friedrich Nietzsche said in so many words, “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger,” and here we are in a new year. As we enter 2021, we know so much more about COVID-19 than we did mere months ago, and many of us have been fortunate enough to be vaccinated already.
We should be very proud of our medical and scientific community, which has worked so hard to prevent and treat COVID-19. It is indeed a miracle of modern medicine that two vaccines made their way through development to distribution in under a year. It is a great relief that health care workers are first in line: Of the 4 million vaccine doses given worldwide, 2 million were to U.S. medical personnel. We can now track the number of people vaccinated around the globe.
Yet, “the darkest hour is just before the dawn.” We are currently in the riskiest part of the pandemic, and we must continue to work hard.
As 2021 progresses, we can expect to begin the long recovery process. We know we are innately wired to adapt to adversity and are therefore resilient. The key is to tap into this wiring by developing behaviors, habits, and strategies that support us.
Posttraumatic growth (PTG) is a theory in mental health that explains a kind of transformation following trauma. It was developed by psychologists Richard Tedeschi, PhD, and Lawrence Calhoun, PhD, in the mid-1990s. They studied how people experienced positive growth following adversity. Dr. Tedeschi has said: “People develop new understandings of themselves, the world they live in, how to relate to other people, the kind of future they might have and a better understanding of how to live life.” One-half to two-thirds of individuals experiencing trauma will experience PTG. Given that our entire profession has gone through this collective trauma, far better times may indeed be ahead.
Resilience expert Eva Selhub, MD, suggests cultivating these six pillars:
- Physical vitality: The toll of 2020 has been enormous. If we are to rebound, we must care for ourselves. In our training, we were taught to put our health aside and work grueling hours. But to recover from trauma, we must attend to our own needs. Even after we are vaccinated, we must keep our nutritional status and immunity functioning at optimal levels. Let’s not get COVID-19 complacency. Clearly, health matters most. Ours included!
- Mental toughness: We made it through an incredibly grueling year, and we had to “build it as we sailed.” We figured out how to save as many lives as we could and simultaneously keep ourselves and our families safe. We have seen things previously unimaginable. We have adjusted to telemedicine. We have lived with far fewer pleasures. We have cultivated multiple ways to tame our anxieties. The year 2020 is one we can be proud of for ourselves and our colleagues. We have come a long way in a short time.
- Emotional balance: Anxiety and depression were easy to fall into in 2020. But as the pandemic subsides, the pendulum will swing the other way. The 1918 pandemic gave rise to the Roaring Twenties. What will the next chapter in our civilization bring?
- Loving and strong connections. Our relationships are what give depth and meaning to our lives, and these relationships are crucial now so we can heal. How can we nourish our connections? What toll has the pandemic taken on those closest to you? Did some friends or family step up and help? Can we move out of our caretaker role and allow others to care for us?
- Spiritual connection: Facing so much grief and suffering, we have had an opportunity to look at our own lives from a different perspective. It has been an important year for reflection. How can we cultivate a deeper appreciation recognizing that every day is truly a gift? Did you find more purpose in your work last year? What sustained you in your time of need?
- Inspiring leadership: As health care professionals, we must set an example. We must show our patients and our families how resilient we can be. Let’s grow from trauma and avoid succumbing to depression, self-destructive tendencies, and divisiveness. We must continue to care for ourselves, our patients, and our community and work together to ensure a brighter and safer future for all.
Wishing you a safe, happy and healthy 2021.
“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”
– Carl Jung, PhD
Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Mimosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.
When we went to medical school, how many of us thought we would practice through a pandemic? For most of us, 2020 was the most challenging professional year of our lives. As a psychiatrist, I found it particularly odd to be struggling with the same issues as all of my patients and to have all my patients in crisis at the same time. I was repeatedly asked by friends, “How are your patients doing?” My reply, “About the same as the rest of us.” After a period of adapting, I felt truly blessed to be able to practice online. I know many of my colleagues did not have that luxury, and the stress you endured is hard to fathom.
Yet, as Friedrich Nietzsche said in so many words, “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger,” and here we are in a new year. As we enter 2021, we know so much more about COVID-19 than we did mere months ago, and many of us have been fortunate enough to be vaccinated already.
We should be very proud of our medical and scientific community, which has worked so hard to prevent and treat COVID-19. It is indeed a miracle of modern medicine that two vaccines made their way through development to distribution in under a year. It is a great relief that health care workers are first in line: Of the 4 million vaccine doses given worldwide, 2 million were to U.S. medical personnel. We can now track the number of people vaccinated around the globe.
Yet, “the darkest hour is just before the dawn.” We are currently in the riskiest part of the pandemic, and we must continue to work hard.
As 2021 progresses, we can expect to begin the long recovery process. We know we are innately wired to adapt to adversity and are therefore resilient. The key is to tap into this wiring by developing behaviors, habits, and strategies that support us.
Posttraumatic growth (PTG) is a theory in mental health that explains a kind of transformation following trauma. It was developed by psychologists Richard Tedeschi, PhD, and Lawrence Calhoun, PhD, in the mid-1990s. They studied how people experienced positive growth following adversity. Dr. Tedeschi has said: “People develop new understandings of themselves, the world they live in, how to relate to other people, the kind of future they might have and a better understanding of how to live life.” One-half to two-thirds of individuals experiencing trauma will experience PTG. Given that our entire profession has gone through this collective trauma, far better times may indeed be ahead.
Resilience expert Eva Selhub, MD, suggests cultivating these six pillars:
- Physical vitality: The toll of 2020 has been enormous. If we are to rebound, we must care for ourselves. In our training, we were taught to put our health aside and work grueling hours. But to recover from trauma, we must attend to our own needs. Even after we are vaccinated, we must keep our nutritional status and immunity functioning at optimal levels. Let’s not get COVID-19 complacency. Clearly, health matters most. Ours included!
- Mental toughness: We made it through an incredibly grueling year, and we had to “build it as we sailed.” We figured out how to save as many lives as we could and simultaneously keep ourselves and our families safe. We have seen things previously unimaginable. We have adjusted to telemedicine. We have lived with far fewer pleasures. We have cultivated multiple ways to tame our anxieties. The year 2020 is one we can be proud of for ourselves and our colleagues. We have come a long way in a short time.
- Emotional balance: Anxiety and depression were easy to fall into in 2020. But as the pandemic subsides, the pendulum will swing the other way. The 1918 pandemic gave rise to the Roaring Twenties. What will the next chapter in our civilization bring?
- Loving and strong connections. Our relationships are what give depth and meaning to our lives, and these relationships are crucial now so we can heal. How can we nourish our connections? What toll has the pandemic taken on those closest to you? Did some friends or family step up and help? Can we move out of our caretaker role and allow others to care for us?
- Spiritual connection: Facing so much grief and suffering, we have had an opportunity to look at our own lives from a different perspective. It has been an important year for reflection. How can we cultivate a deeper appreciation recognizing that every day is truly a gift? Did you find more purpose in your work last year? What sustained you in your time of need?
- Inspiring leadership: As health care professionals, we must set an example. We must show our patients and our families how resilient we can be. Let’s grow from trauma and avoid succumbing to depression, self-destructive tendencies, and divisiveness. We must continue to care for ourselves, our patients, and our community and work together to ensure a brighter and safer future for all.
Wishing you a safe, happy and healthy 2021.
“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”
– Carl Jung, PhD
Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Mimosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.
COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized HF patients: Nearly 1 in 4
Patients with heart failure who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization, according to a large database analysis that included more than 8,000 patients who had heart failure and COVID-19.
In-hospital mortality was 24.2% for patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized with COVID-19, as compared with 14.2% for individuals without heart failure who were hospitalized with COVID-19.
For perspective, the researchers compared the patients with heart failure and COVID-19 with patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized for an acute worsening episode: the risk for death was about 10-fold higher with COVID-19.
“These patients really face remarkably high risk, and when we compare that to the risk of in-hospital death with something we are a lot more familiar with – acute heart failure – we see that the risk was about 10-fold greater,” said first author Ankeet S. Bhatt, MD, MBA, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
In an article published online in JACC Heart Failure on Dec. 28, a group led by Dr. Bhatt and senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, reported an analysis of administrative data on a total of 2,041,855 incident hospitalizations logged in the Premier Healthcare Database between April 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2020.
The Premier Healthcare Database comprises data from more than 1 billion patient encounters, which equates to approximately 1 in every 5 of all inpatient discharges in the United States.
Of 132,312 hospitalizations of patients with a history of heart failure, 23,843 (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute heart failure, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 (75.6%) were hospitalized for other reasons.
Outcomes and resource utilization were compared with 141,895 COVID-19 hospitalizations of patients who did not have heart failure.
Patients were deemed to have a history of heart failure if they were hospitalized at least once for heart failure from Jan. 1, 2019, to March 21, 2020, or had at least two heart failure outpatient visits during that period.
In a comment, Dr. Solomon noted some of the pros and cons of the data used in this study.
“Premier is a huge database, encompassing about one-quarter of all the health care facilities in the United States and one-fifth of all inpatient visits, so for that reason we’re able to look at things that are very difficult to look at in smaller hospital systems, but the data are also limited in that you don’t have as much granular detail as you might in smaller datasets,” said Dr. Solomon.
“One thing to recognize is that our data start at the point of hospital admission, so were looking only at individuals who have crossed the threshold in terms of their illness and been admitted,” he added.
Use of in-hospital resources was significantly greater for patients with heart failure hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with patients hospitalized for acute heart failure or for other reasons. This included “multifold” higher rates of ICU care (29% vs. 15%), mechanical ventilation (17% vs. 6%), and central venous catheter insertion (19% vs. 7%; P < .001 for all).
The proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation and care in the ICU in the group with COVID-19 but who did not have no heart failure was similar to those who had both conditions.
The greater odds of in-hospital mortality among patients with both heart failure and COVID-19, compared with individuals with heart failure hospitalized for other reasons, was strongest in April, with an adjusted odds ratio of 14.48, compared with subsequent months (adjusted OR for May-September, 10.11; P for interaction < .001).
“We’re obviously not able to say with certainty what was happening in April, but I think that maybe the patients who were most vulnerable to COVID-19 may be more represented in that population, so the patients with comorbidities or who are immunosuppressed or otherwise,” said Dr. Bhatt in an interview.
“The other thing we think is that there may be a learning curve in terms of how to care for patients with acute severe respiratory illness. That includes increased institutional knowledge – like the use of prone ventilation – but also therapies that were subsequently shown to have benefit in randomized clinical trials, such as dexamethasone,” he added.
“These results should remind us to be innovative and thoughtful in our management of patients with heart failure while trying to maintain equity and good health for all,” wrote Nasrien E. Ibrahim, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Ersilia DeFillipis, MD, Columbia University, New York; and Mitchel Psotka, MD, PhD, Innova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., in an editorial accompanying the study.
The data emphasize the importance of ensuring equal access to services such as telemedicine, virtual visits, home nursing visits, and remote monitoring, they noted.
“As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and disproportionately ravages socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we should focus our efforts on strategies that minimize these inequities,” the editorialists wrote.
Dr. Solomon noted that, although Black and Hispanic patients were overrepresented in the population of heart failure patients hospitalized with COVID-19, once in the hospital, race was not a predictor of in-hospital mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation.
Dr. Bhatt has received speaker fees from Sanofi Pasteur and is supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute postdoctoral training grant. Dr. Solomon has received grant support and/or speaking fees from a number of companies and from the NIH/NHLBI. The editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with heart failure who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization, according to a large database analysis that included more than 8,000 patients who had heart failure and COVID-19.
In-hospital mortality was 24.2% for patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized with COVID-19, as compared with 14.2% for individuals without heart failure who were hospitalized with COVID-19.
For perspective, the researchers compared the patients with heart failure and COVID-19 with patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized for an acute worsening episode: the risk for death was about 10-fold higher with COVID-19.
“These patients really face remarkably high risk, and when we compare that to the risk of in-hospital death with something we are a lot more familiar with – acute heart failure – we see that the risk was about 10-fold greater,” said first author Ankeet S. Bhatt, MD, MBA, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
In an article published online in JACC Heart Failure on Dec. 28, a group led by Dr. Bhatt and senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, reported an analysis of administrative data on a total of 2,041,855 incident hospitalizations logged in the Premier Healthcare Database between April 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2020.
The Premier Healthcare Database comprises data from more than 1 billion patient encounters, which equates to approximately 1 in every 5 of all inpatient discharges in the United States.
Of 132,312 hospitalizations of patients with a history of heart failure, 23,843 (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute heart failure, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 (75.6%) were hospitalized for other reasons.
Outcomes and resource utilization were compared with 141,895 COVID-19 hospitalizations of patients who did not have heart failure.
Patients were deemed to have a history of heart failure if they were hospitalized at least once for heart failure from Jan. 1, 2019, to March 21, 2020, or had at least two heart failure outpatient visits during that period.
In a comment, Dr. Solomon noted some of the pros and cons of the data used in this study.
“Premier is a huge database, encompassing about one-quarter of all the health care facilities in the United States and one-fifth of all inpatient visits, so for that reason we’re able to look at things that are very difficult to look at in smaller hospital systems, but the data are also limited in that you don’t have as much granular detail as you might in smaller datasets,” said Dr. Solomon.
“One thing to recognize is that our data start at the point of hospital admission, so were looking only at individuals who have crossed the threshold in terms of their illness and been admitted,” he added.
Use of in-hospital resources was significantly greater for patients with heart failure hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with patients hospitalized for acute heart failure or for other reasons. This included “multifold” higher rates of ICU care (29% vs. 15%), mechanical ventilation (17% vs. 6%), and central venous catheter insertion (19% vs. 7%; P < .001 for all).
The proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation and care in the ICU in the group with COVID-19 but who did not have no heart failure was similar to those who had both conditions.
The greater odds of in-hospital mortality among patients with both heart failure and COVID-19, compared with individuals with heart failure hospitalized for other reasons, was strongest in April, with an adjusted odds ratio of 14.48, compared with subsequent months (adjusted OR for May-September, 10.11; P for interaction < .001).
“We’re obviously not able to say with certainty what was happening in April, but I think that maybe the patients who were most vulnerable to COVID-19 may be more represented in that population, so the patients with comorbidities or who are immunosuppressed or otherwise,” said Dr. Bhatt in an interview.
“The other thing we think is that there may be a learning curve in terms of how to care for patients with acute severe respiratory illness. That includes increased institutional knowledge – like the use of prone ventilation – but also therapies that were subsequently shown to have benefit in randomized clinical trials, such as dexamethasone,” he added.
“These results should remind us to be innovative and thoughtful in our management of patients with heart failure while trying to maintain equity and good health for all,” wrote Nasrien E. Ibrahim, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Ersilia DeFillipis, MD, Columbia University, New York; and Mitchel Psotka, MD, PhD, Innova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., in an editorial accompanying the study.
The data emphasize the importance of ensuring equal access to services such as telemedicine, virtual visits, home nursing visits, and remote monitoring, they noted.
“As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and disproportionately ravages socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we should focus our efforts on strategies that minimize these inequities,” the editorialists wrote.
Dr. Solomon noted that, although Black and Hispanic patients were overrepresented in the population of heart failure patients hospitalized with COVID-19, once in the hospital, race was not a predictor of in-hospital mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation.
Dr. Bhatt has received speaker fees from Sanofi Pasteur and is supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute postdoctoral training grant. Dr. Solomon has received grant support and/or speaking fees from a number of companies and from the NIH/NHLBI. The editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with heart failure who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization, according to a large database analysis that included more than 8,000 patients who had heart failure and COVID-19.
In-hospital mortality was 24.2% for patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized with COVID-19, as compared with 14.2% for individuals without heart failure who were hospitalized with COVID-19.
For perspective, the researchers compared the patients with heart failure and COVID-19 with patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized for an acute worsening episode: the risk for death was about 10-fold higher with COVID-19.
“These patients really face remarkably high risk, and when we compare that to the risk of in-hospital death with something we are a lot more familiar with – acute heart failure – we see that the risk was about 10-fold greater,” said first author Ankeet S. Bhatt, MD, MBA, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
In an article published online in JACC Heart Failure on Dec. 28, a group led by Dr. Bhatt and senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, reported an analysis of administrative data on a total of 2,041,855 incident hospitalizations logged in the Premier Healthcare Database between April 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2020.
The Premier Healthcare Database comprises data from more than 1 billion patient encounters, which equates to approximately 1 in every 5 of all inpatient discharges in the United States.
Of 132,312 hospitalizations of patients with a history of heart failure, 23,843 (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute heart failure, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 (75.6%) were hospitalized for other reasons.
Outcomes and resource utilization were compared with 141,895 COVID-19 hospitalizations of patients who did not have heart failure.
Patients were deemed to have a history of heart failure if they were hospitalized at least once for heart failure from Jan. 1, 2019, to March 21, 2020, or had at least two heart failure outpatient visits during that period.
In a comment, Dr. Solomon noted some of the pros and cons of the data used in this study.
“Premier is a huge database, encompassing about one-quarter of all the health care facilities in the United States and one-fifth of all inpatient visits, so for that reason we’re able to look at things that are very difficult to look at in smaller hospital systems, but the data are also limited in that you don’t have as much granular detail as you might in smaller datasets,” said Dr. Solomon.
“One thing to recognize is that our data start at the point of hospital admission, so were looking only at individuals who have crossed the threshold in terms of their illness and been admitted,” he added.
Use of in-hospital resources was significantly greater for patients with heart failure hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with patients hospitalized for acute heart failure or for other reasons. This included “multifold” higher rates of ICU care (29% vs. 15%), mechanical ventilation (17% vs. 6%), and central venous catheter insertion (19% vs. 7%; P < .001 for all).
The proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation and care in the ICU in the group with COVID-19 but who did not have no heart failure was similar to those who had both conditions.
The greater odds of in-hospital mortality among patients with both heart failure and COVID-19, compared with individuals with heart failure hospitalized for other reasons, was strongest in April, with an adjusted odds ratio of 14.48, compared with subsequent months (adjusted OR for May-September, 10.11; P for interaction < .001).
“We’re obviously not able to say with certainty what was happening in April, but I think that maybe the patients who were most vulnerable to COVID-19 may be more represented in that population, so the patients with comorbidities or who are immunosuppressed or otherwise,” said Dr. Bhatt in an interview.
“The other thing we think is that there may be a learning curve in terms of how to care for patients with acute severe respiratory illness. That includes increased institutional knowledge – like the use of prone ventilation – but also therapies that were subsequently shown to have benefit in randomized clinical trials, such as dexamethasone,” he added.
“These results should remind us to be innovative and thoughtful in our management of patients with heart failure while trying to maintain equity and good health for all,” wrote Nasrien E. Ibrahim, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Ersilia DeFillipis, MD, Columbia University, New York; and Mitchel Psotka, MD, PhD, Innova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., in an editorial accompanying the study.
The data emphasize the importance of ensuring equal access to services such as telemedicine, virtual visits, home nursing visits, and remote monitoring, they noted.
“As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and disproportionately ravages socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we should focus our efforts on strategies that minimize these inequities,” the editorialists wrote.
Dr. Solomon noted that, although Black and Hispanic patients were overrepresented in the population of heart failure patients hospitalized with COVID-19, once in the hospital, race was not a predictor of in-hospital mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation.
Dr. Bhatt has received speaker fees from Sanofi Pasteur and is supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute postdoctoral training grant. Dr. Solomon has received grant support and/or speaking fees from a number of companies and from the NIH/NHLBI. The editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NETs a possible therapeutic target for COVID-19 thrombosis?
Researchers in Madrid may have found a clue to the pathogenesis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with COVID-19; it might also offer a therapeutic target to counter the hypercoagulability seen with COVID-19.
In a case series of five patients with COVID-19 who had an STEMI, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) were detected in coronary thrombi of all five patients. The median density was 66%, which is significantly higher than that seen in a historical series of patients with STEMI. In that series, NETs were found in only two-thirds of patients; in that series, the median density was 19%.
In the patients with COVID-19 and STEMI and in the patients reported in the prepandemic historical series from 2015, intracoronary aspirates were obtained during percutaneous coronary intervention using a thrombus aspiration device.
Histologically, findings in the patients from 2015 differed from those of patients with COVID-19. In the patients with COVID, thrombi were composed mostly of fibrin and polymorphonuclear cells. None showed fragments of atherosclerotic plaque or iron deposits indicative of previous episodes of plaque rupture. In contrast, 65% of thrombi from the 2015 series contained plaque fragments.
Ana Blasco, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.
Commenting on the findings in an interview, Irene Lang, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna said, “This is really a very small series, purely observational, and suffering from the problem that acute STEMI is uncommon in COVID-19, but it does serve to demonstrate once more the abundance of NETs in acute myocardial infarction.”
“NETs are very much at the cutting edge of thrombosis research, and NET formation provides yet another link between inflammation and clot formation,” added Peter Libby, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“Multiple observations have shown thrombosis of arteries large and small, microvessels, and veins in COVID-19. The observations of Blasco et al. add to the growing literature about NETs as contributors to the havoc wrought in multiple organs in advanced COVID-19,” he added in an email exchange with this news organization.
Neither Dr. Lang nor Dr. Libby were involved in this research; both have been actively studying NETs and their contribution to cardiothrombotic disease in recent years.
NETs are newly recognized contributors to venous and arterial thrombosis. These weblike DNA strands are extruded by activated or dying neutrophils and have protein mediators that ensnare pathogens while minimizing damage to the host cell.
First described in 2004, exaggerated NET formation has also been linked to the initiation and accretion of inflammation and thrombosis.
“NETs thus furnish a previously unsuspected link between inflammation, innate immunity, thrombosis, oxidative stress, and cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Libby and his coauthors wrote in an article on the topic published in Circulation Research earlier this year.
Limiting NET formation or “dissolving” existing NETs could provide a therapeutic avenue not just for patients with COVID-19 but for all patients with thrombotic disease.
“The concept of NETs as a therapeutic target is appealing, in and out of COVID times,” said Dr. Lang.
“I personally believe that the work helps to raise awareness for the potential use of deoxyribonuclease (DNase), an enzyme that acts to clear NETs by dissolving the DNA strands, in the acute treatment of STEMI. Rapid injection of engineered recombinant DNases could potentially wipe away coronary obstructions, ideally before they may cause damage to the myocardium,” she added.
Dr. Blasco and colleagues and Dr. Lang have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant or member of the advisory board for a number of companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers in Madrid may have found a clue to the pathogenesis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with COVID-19; it might also offer a therapeutic target to counter the hypercoagulability seen with COVID-19.
In a case series of five patients with COVID-19 who had an STEMI, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) were detected in coronary thrombi of all five patients. The median density was 66%, which is significantly higher than that seen in a historical series of patients with STEMI. In that series, NETs were found in only two-thirds of patients; in that series, the median density was 19%.
In the patients with COVID-19 and STEMI and in the patients reported in the prepandemic historical series from 2015, intracoronary aspirates were obtained during percutaneous coronary intervention using a thrombus aspiration device.
Histologically, findings in the patients from 2015 differed from those of patients with COVID-19. In the patients with COVID, thrombi were composed mostly of fibrin and polymorphonuclear cells. None showed fragments of atherosclerotic plaque or iron deposits indicative of previous episodes of plaque rupture. In contrast, 65% of thrombi from the 2015 series contained plaque fragments.
Ana Blasco, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.
Commenting on the findings in an interview, Irene Lang, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna said, “This is really a very small series, purely observational, and suffering from the problem that acute STEMI is uncommon in COVID-19, but it does serve to demonstrate once more the abundance of NETs in acute myocardial infarction.”
“NETs are very much at the cutting edge of thrombosis research, and NET formation provides yet another link between inflammation and clot formation,” added Peter Libby, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“Multiple observations have shown thrombosis of arteries large and small, microvessels, and veins in COVID-19. The observations of Blasco et al. add to the growing literature about NETs as contributors to the havoc wrought in multiple organs in advanced COVID-19,” he added in an email exchange with this news organization.
Neither Dr. Lang nor Dr. Libby were involved in this research; both have been actively studying NETs and their contribution to cardiothrombotic disease in recent years.
NETs are newly recognized contributors to venous and arterial thrombosis. These weblike DNA strands are extruded by activated or dying neutrophils and have protein mediators that ensnare pathogens while minimizing damage to the host cell.
First described in 2004, exaggerated NET formation has also been linked to the initiation and accretion of inflammation and thrombosis.
“NETs thus furnish a previously unsuspected link between inflammation, innate immunity, thrombosis, oxidative stress, and cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Libby and his coauthors wrote in an article on the topic published in Circulation Research earlier this year.
Limiting NET formation or “dissolving” existing NETs could provide a therapeutic avenue not just for patients with COVID-19 but for all patients with thrombotic disease.
“The concept of NETs as a therapeutic target is appealing, in and out of COVID times,” said Dr. Lang.
“I personally believe that the work helps to raise awareness for the potential use of deoxyribonuclease (DNase), an enzyme that acts to clear NETs by dissolving the DNA strands, in the acute treatment of STEMI. Rapid injection of engineered recombinant DNases could potentially wipe away coronary obstructions, ideally before they may cause damage to the myocardium,” she added.
Dr. Blasco and colleagues and Dr. Lang have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant or member of the advisory board for a number of companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers in Madrid may have found a clue to the pathogenesis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with COVID-19; it might also offer a therapeutic target to counter the hypercoagulability seen with COVID-19.
In a case series of five patients with COVID-19 who had an STEMI, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) were detected in coronary thrombi of all five patients. The median density was 66%, which is significantly higher than that seen in a historical series of patients with STEMI. In that series, NETs were found in only two-thirds of patients; in that series, the median density was 19%.
In the patients with COVID-19 and STEMI and in the patients reported in the prepandemic historical series from 2015, intracoronary aspirates were obtained during percutaneous coronary intervention using a thrombus aspiration device.
Histologically, findings in the patients from 2015 differed from those of patients with COVID-19. In the patients with COVID, thrombi were composed mostly of fibrin and polymorphonuclear cells. None showed fragments of atherosclerotic plaque or iron deposits indicative of previous episodes of plaque rupture. In contrast, 65% of thrombi from the 2015 series contained plaque fragments.
Ana Blasco, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.
Commenting on the findings in an interview, Irene Lang, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna said, “This is really a very small series, purely observational, and suffering from the problem that acute STEMI is uncommon in COVID-19, but it does serve to demonstrate once more the abundance of NETs in acute myocardial infarction.”
“NETs are very much at the cutting edge of thrombosis research, and NET formation provides yet another link between inflammation and clot formation,” added Peter Libby, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“Multiple observations have shown thrombosis of arteries large and small, microvessels, and veins in COVID-19. The observations of Blasco et al. add to the growing literature about NETs as contributors to the havoc wrought in multiple organs in advanced COVID-19,” he added in an email exchange with this news organization.
Neither Dr. Lang nor Dr. Libby were involved in this research; both have been actively studying NETs and their contribution to cardiothrombotic disease in recent years.
NETs are newly recognized contributors to venous and arterial thrombosis. These weblike DNA strands are extruded by activated or dying neutrophils and have protein mediators that ensnare pathogens while minimizing damage to the host cell.
First described in 2004, exaggerated NET formation has also been linked to the initiation and accretion of inflammation and thrombosis.
“NETs thus furnish a previously unsuspected link between inflammation, innate immunity, thrombosis, oxidative stress, and cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Libby and his coauthors wrote in an article on the topic published in Circulation Research earlier this year.
Limiting NET formation or “dissolving” existing NETs could provide a therapeutic avenue not just for patients with COVID-19 but for all patients with thrombotic disease.
“The concept of NETs as a therapeutic target is appealing, in and out of COVID times,” said Dr. Lang.
“I personally believe that the work helps to raise awareness for the potential use of deoxyribonuclease (DNase), an enzyme that acts to clear NETs by dissolving the DNA strands, in the acute treatment of STEMI. Rapid injection of engineered recombinant DNases could potentially wipe away coronary obstructions, ideally before they may cause damage to the myocardium,” she added.
Dr. Blasco and colleagues and Dr. Lang have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant or member of the advisory board for a number of companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In utero SARS-CoV-2 transmission unlikely, but neonates may be unprotected
No maternal viremia, placental infection, or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during a biorepository study that included 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
But SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred relatively inefficiently across the placenta in the third trimester, which suggests that neonates whose mothers had COVID-19 during pregnancy still may be vulnerable to the virus, the investigators said. Antibodies may transfer more efficiently with second-trimester infections, data from another study indicate.
“These findings suggest that, although low rates of maternal viremia and patterns of placental SARS-CoV-2 receptor distribution may underlie the rarity of vertical transmission, reduced transplacental transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may leave neonates at risk for infection,” wrote study author Andrea G. Edlow, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Dr. Edlow is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
In another study published in Cell, the research team found that, unlike with third trimester infections, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred efficiently after infection in the second trimester. “Understanding how de novo antibody transfer varies by trimester may point to critical windows in pregnancy that may be most desirable for induction of antibodies through vaccination to optimize protection for both the mother and her infant,” they wrote.
It is unclear whether antibodies that are elicited by recently authorized vaccines will transfer differently than those elicited by natural infection.
Reassurance, questions, and concerns
“Although it is not known whether the inefficient transplacental transfer of antibodies ... will also extend to antibodies elicited by future SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, it underscores the susceptibility of infants,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, in an editorial accompanying the JAMA Network Open study.
And while the lack of vertical disease transmission in this study is reassuring, more research is needed, according to the director of a federal institute that helped fund the research.
“This study provides some reassurance that SARS-CoV-2 infections during the third trimester are unlikely to pass through the placenta to the fetus, but more research needs to be done to confirm this finding,” said Diana W. Bianchi, MD, director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, in a news release.
The study authors theorize that the low incidence of maternal viremia and nonoverlapping expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the placenta may protect against placental infection and vertical transmission.
Testing at 3 centers
To quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal and neonatal biofluids and the transplacental passage of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, Dr. Edlow and collaborators enrolled 127 pregnant women at three tertiary care centers in Boston between April 2 and June 13, 2020. Follow-up occurred through July 10. Researchers tested neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab at age 24 hours.
Of 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 36% were asymptomatic, 34% had mild disease, 11% had moderate disease, 16% had severe disease, and 3% had critical disease. Viral load analyses did not detect viremia in maternal or cord blood, and there was no evidence of vertical transmission.
Transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower than transfer of anti-influenza antibodies The average cord-to-maternal antibody ratio was 0.72 for anti–receptor binding domain IgG and 0.74 for antinucleocapsid, whereas the ratio for anti-influenza antibodies was 1.44. The expected cord-to-maternal antibody ratio is approximately 1.5 for pathogens such as pertussis, influenza, and measles, the authors noted.
Among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 35-week intrauterine fetal demise occurred in an asymptomatic woman, and 22-week neonatal demise secondary to extreme prematurity in the setting of abruption and preterm labor occurred in a symptomatic patient.
Maternal disease severity was significantly associated with detectable respiratory viral load. In addition, disease severity was positively correlated with serum concentration of C-reactive protein and ALT, and negatively correlated with white blood cell count.
In the Cell study that further examined antibody transfer, the investigators focused on maternal and cord blood plasma samples from 22 mother-cord dyads with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and 34 uninfected mother-neonate dyads, as well as a second trimester cohort of 29 mother-neonate dyads and a third trimester validation cohort of 28 mother-neonate dyads.
Protecting infants
The results support “previous studies that have found that, while intrauterine transmission is possible, it is not common,” Dr. Jamieson and Dr. Rasmussen noted. “Most viral infections can be transmitted transplacentally; however, why some viruses are transmitted relatively easily across the placenta (e.g., HIV, Zika, herpes simplex virus), while others, such as influenza, are transmitted rarely is not well understood.”
Data indicate that infants are at higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with older children. Nonetheless, research suggests that strict hygiene measures can protect infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they added.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health; the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; a gift from Mark, Lisa, and Enid Schwartz; and by the Massachusetts General Hospital department of pathology Vickery-Colvin Award and other nonprofit groups. Dr. Edlow, Dr. Jamieson, and Dr. Rasmussen had no conflict of interest disclosures.
The coauthors of both studies disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies, grants from foundations and government agencies, a patent for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and author royalties from publishers.
No maternal viremia, placental infection, or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during a biorepository study that included 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
But SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred relatively inefficiently across the placenta in the third trimester, which suggests that neonates whose mothers had COVID-19 during pregnancy still may be vulnerable to the virus, the investigators said. Antibodies may transfer more efficiently with second-trimester infections, data from another study indicate.
“These findings suggest that, although low rates of maternal viremia and patterns of placental SARS-CoV-2 receptor distribution may underlie the rarity of vertical transmission, reduced transplacental transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may leave neonates at risk for infection,” wrote study author Andrea G. Edlow, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Dr. Edlow is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
In another study published in Cell, the research team found that, unlike with third trimester infections, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred efficiently after infection in the second trimester. “Understanding how de novo antibody transfer varies by trimester may point to critical windows in pregnancy that may be most desirable for induction of antibodies through vaccination to optimize protection for both the mother and her infant,” they wrote.
It is unclear whether antibodies that are elicited by recently authorized vaccines will transfer differently than those elicited by natural infection.
Reassurance, questions, and concerns
“Although it is not known whether the inefficient transplacental transfer of antibodies ... will also extend to antibodies elicited by future SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, it underscores the susceptibility of infants,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, in an editorial accompanying the JAMA Network Open study.
And while the lack of vertical disease transmission in this study is reassuring, more research is needed, according to the director of a federal institute that helped fund the research.
“This study provides some reassurance that SARS-CoV-2 infections during the third trimester are unlikely to pass through the placenta to the fetus, but more research needs to be done to confirm this finding,” said Diana W. Bianchi, MD, director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, in a news release.
The study authors theorize that the low incidence of maternal viremia and nonoverlapping expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the placenta may protect against placental infection and vertical transmission.
Testing at 3 centers
To quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal and neonatal biofluids and the transplacental passage of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, Dr. Edlow and collaborators enrolled 127 pregnant women at three tertiary care centers in Boston between April 2 and June 13, 2020. Follow-up occurred through July 10. Researchers tested neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab at age 24 hours.
Of 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 36% were asymptomatic, 34% had mild disease, 11% had moderate disease, 16% had severe disease, and 3% had critical disease. Viral load analyses did not detect viremia in maternal or cord blood, and there was no evidence of vertical transmission.
Transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower than transfer of anti-influenza antibodies The average cord-to-maternal antibody ratio was 0.72 for anti–receptor binding domain IgG and 0.74 for antinucleocapsid, whereas the ratio for anti-influenza antibodies was 1.44. The expected cord-to-maternal antibody ratio is approximately 1.5 for pathogens such as pertussis, influenza, and measles, the authors noted.
Among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 35-week intrauterine fetal demise occurred in an asymptomatic woman, and 22-week neonatal demise secondary to extreme prematurity in the setting of abruption and preterm labor occurred in a symptomatic patient.
Maternal disease severity was significantly associated with detectable respiratory viral load. In addition, disease severity was positively correlated with serum concentration of C-reactive protein and ALT, and negatively correlated with white blood cell count.
In the Cell study that further examined antibody transfer, the investigators focused on maternal and cord blood plasma samples from 22 mother-cord dyads with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and 34 uninfected mother-neonate dyads, as well as a second trimester cohort of 29 mother-neonate dyads and a third trimester validation cohort of 28 mother-neonate dyads.
Protecting infants
The results support “previous studies that have found that, while intrauterine transmission is possible, it is not common,” Dr. Jamieson and Dr. Rasmussen noted. “Most viral infections can be transmitted transplacentally; however, why some viruses are transmitted relatively easily across the placenta (e.g., HIV, Zika, herpes simplex virus), while others, such as influenza, are transmitted rarely is not well understood.”
Data indicate that infants are at higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with older children. Nonetheless, research suggests that strict hygiene measures can protect infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they added.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health; the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; a gift from Mark, Lisa, and Enid Schwartz; and by the Massachusetts General Hospital department of pathology Vickery-Colvin Award and other nonprofit groups. Dr. Edlow, Dr. Jamieson, and Dr. Rasmussen had no conflict of interest disclosures.
The coauthors of both studies disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies, grants from foundations and government agencies, a patent for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and author royalties from publishers.
No maternal viremia, placental infection, or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during a biorepository study that included 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
But SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred relatively inefficiently across the placenta in the third trimester, which suggests that neonates whose mothers had COVID-19 during pregnancy still may be vulnerable to the virus, the investigators said. Antibodies may transfer more efficiently with second-trimester infections, data from another study indicate.
“These findings suggest that, although low rates of maternal viremia and patterns of placental SARS-CoV-2 receptor distribution may underlie the rarity of vertical transmission, reduced transplacental transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may leave neonates at risk for infection,” wrote study author Andrea G. Edlow, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Dr. Edlow is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
In another study published in Cell, the research team found that, unlike with third trimester infections, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred efficiently after infection in the second trimester. “Understanding how de novo antibody transfer varies by trimester may point to critical windows in pregnancy that may be most desirable for induction of antibodies through vaccination to optimize protection for both the mother and her infant,” they wrote.
It is unclear whether antibodies that are elicited by recently authorized vaccines will transfer differently than those elicited by natural infection.
Reassurance, questions, and concerns
“Although it is not known whether the inefficient transplacental transfer of antibodies ... will also extend to antibodies elicited by future SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, it underscores the susceptibility of infants,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, in an editorial accompanying the JAMA Network Open study.
And while the lack of vertical disease transmission in this study is reassuring, more research is needed, according to the director of a federal institute that helped fund the research.
“This study provides some reassurance that SARS-CoV-2 infections during the third trimester are unlikely to pass through the placenta to the fetus, but more research needs to be done to confirm this finding,” said Diana W. Bianchi, MD, director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, in a news release.
The study authors theorize that the low incidence of maternal viremia and nonoverlapping expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the placenta may protect against placental infection and vertical transmission.
Testing at 3 centers
To quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal and neonatal biofluids and the transplacental passage of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, Dr. Edlow and collaborators enrolled 127 pregnant women at three tertiary care centers in Boston between April 2 and June 13, 2020. Follow-up occurred through July 10. Researchers tested neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab at age 24 hours.
Of 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 36% were asymptomatic, 34% had mild disease, 11% had moderate disease, 16% had severe disease, and 3% had critical disease. Viral load analyses did not detect viremia in maternal or cord blood, and there was no evidence of vertical transmission.
Transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower than transfer of anti-influenza antibodies The average cord-to-maternal antibody ratio was 0.72 for anti–receptor binding domain IgG and 0.74 for antinucleocapsid, whereas the ratio for anti-influenza antibodies was 1.44. The expected cord-to-maternal antibody ratio is approximately 1.5 for pathogens such as pertussis, influenza, and measles, the authors noted.
Among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 35-week intrauterine fetal demise occurred in an asymptomatic woman, and 22-week neonatal demise secondary to extreme prematurity in the setting of abruption and preterm labor occurred in a symptomatic patient.
Maternal disease severity was significantly associated with detectable respiratory viral load. In addition, disease severity was positively correlated with serum concentration of C-reactive protein and ALT, and negatively correlated with white blood cell count.
In the Cell study that further examined antibody transfer, the investigators focused on maternal and cord blood plasma samples from 22 mother-cord dyads with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and 34 uninfected mother-neonate dyads, as well as a second trimester cohort of 29 mother-neonate dyads and a third trimester validation cohort of 28 mother-neonate dyads.
Protecting infants
The results support “previous studies that have found that, while intrauterine transmission is possible, it is not common,” Dr. Jamieson and Dr. Rasmussen noted. “Most viral infections can be transmitted transplacentally; however, why some viruses are transmitted relatively easily across the placenta (e.g., HIV, Zika, herpes simplex virus), while others, such as influenza, are transmitted rarely is not well understood.”
Data indicate that infants are at higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with older children. Nonetheless, research suggests that strict hygiene measures can protect infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they added.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health; the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; a gift from Mark, Lisa, and Enid Schwartz; and by the Massachusetts General Hospital department of pathology Vickery-Colvin Award and other nonprofit groups. Dr. Edlow, Dr. Jamieson, and Dr. Rasmussen had no conflict of interest disclosures.
The coauthors of both studies disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies, grants from foundations and government agencies, a patent for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and author royalties from publishers.
Bariatric surgery might reduce severity of COVID-19 infection
and the disease was less severe than among COVID patients with obesity who had not undergone the surgery, a new retrospective analysis shows.
The research was published in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases.
Because obesity is a well-known risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Ali Aminian, MD, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues decided to study whether weight-loss surgery had a bearing on outcomes of patients with COVID-19.
They matched 33 COVID-19 patients who had undergone metabolic surgery with 330 control patients with obesity who were infected with the virus during the first wave of the pandemic.
Surgery was associated with a 69% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized as a result of COVID-19. None of the surgery patients required intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis, and none died.
“Patients after bariatric surgery become significantly healthier and can fight the virus better,” said Dr. Aminian in a statement from his institution. “If confirmed by future studies, this can be added to the long list of health benefits of bariatric surgery.”
COVID-19 is a wake-up call for the consequences of obesity
Dr. Aminian said in an interview that COVID-19 is a “wake-up call to show the public and health care professionals that obesity is a major health problem and has multiple health consequences.”
More than 300 articles in the literature show that obesity is a major risk factor for poor outcomes following COVID-19 infection. Dr. Aminian said the pandemic has “improved public awareness about the consequences of obesity.”
Compared with last year at his institution, the intake of new patients “who would like to join a program to have surgery or have some tools to help them to lose weight is almost double,” he noted.
Furthermore, referrals to their unit from primary care physicians, as well as from endocrinologists and cardiologists, for bariatric surgery nearly doubled in recent months.
Although the unit had to stop all bariatric surgeries for around 6 weeks in April because of COVID-19, it has performed the same number of procedures this year as in 2019 and 2018.
Because of the recent surge in COVID cases in Ohio, bariatric procedures are once again on hold. “Elective operations that require hospital beds after surgery have been paused to provide beds for patients who have COVID-19,” he explained.
Small sample size, study should be repeated
For their study, Dr. Aminian and colleagues examined the records of 4,365 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Health System who tested positive for the virus between March 8 and July 22, 2020.
Of these, 1,003 had a body mass index of at least 35 mg/kg2; 482 had a BMI of at least 40. The team identified 33 patients who had previously undergone metabolic surgery, comprising 20 sleeve gastrectomies and 13 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses.
The surgical patients were propensity matched in a 1:10 ratio with nonsurgical control patients with a BMI of at least 40. The patients were matched on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, location, smoking status, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The mean BMI of surgical patients was 49.1 before their procedure. It fell to 37.2 by the time they tested positive for COVID-19. This compares with an average of 46.7 in the control group at the time they tested positive for the virus.
The team found that 18.2% of metabolic surgery patients were admitted to hospital versus 42.1% of control patients (P = .013).
Moreover, metabolic surgery patients did not require admission to the intensive care unit, nor did they require mechanical ventilation or dialysis, and none died. This compares with 13.0% (P = .021), 6.7% (P = .24), 1.5%, and 2.4%, respectively, of patients in the control group.
Multivariate analysis indicated that prior metabolic surgery was associated with lower hospital admission, at an odds ratio of 0.31 (P = .028), in comparison with control patients with obesity.
Acknowledging the limited sample size of their study, the team wrote: “As this study reflects findings early in the course of the pandemic, it will be of interest to repeat this study with larger data sets and later in the course of the pandemic.”
Continue as many aspects of obesity management as possible during pandemic
Dr. Aminian underlined that, for him, the take-home message from the study is that health care professionals should “ideally” continue all aspects of obesity management during the pandemic, including “medical management, behavioral therapy, lifestyle changes, and access to bariatric surgery.”
This is despite the fact that insurance coverage for bariatric surgery has “always been a challenge for many patients, since many insurance plans do not cover” bariatric procedures, he noted.
In July, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery should not be considered an elective procedure and should be resumed as soon as it’s safe to do so during any resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and the disease was less severe than among COVID patients with obesity who had not undergone the surgery, a new retrospective analysis shows.
The research was published in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases.
Because obesity is a well-known risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Ali Aminian, MD, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues decided to study whether weight-loss surgery had a bearing on outcomes of patients with COVID-19.
They matched 33 COVID-19 patients who had undergone metabolic surgery with 330 control patients with obesity who were infected with the virus during the first wave of the pandemic.
Surgery was associated with a 69% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized as a result of COVID-19. None of the surgery patients required intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis, and none died.
“Patients after bariatric surgery become significantly healthier and can fight the virus better,” said Dr. Aminian in a statement from his institution. “If confirmed by future studies, this can be added to the long list of health benefits of bariatric surgery.”
COVID-19 is a wake-up call for the consequences of obesity
Dr. Aminian said in an interview that COVID-19 is a “wake-up call to show the public and health care professionals that obesity is a major health problem and has multiple health consequences.”
More than 300 articles in the literature show that obesity is a major risk factor for poor outcomes following COVID-19 infection. Dr. Aminian said the pandemic has “improved public awareness about the consequences of obesity.”
Compared with last year at his institution, the intake of new patients “who would like to join a program to have surgery or have some tools to help them to lose weight is almost double,” he noted.
Furthermore, referrals to their unit from primary care physicians, as well as from endocrinologists and cardiologists, for bariatric surgery nearly doubled in recent months.
Although the unit had to stop all bariatric surgeries for around 6 weeks in April because of COVID-19, it has performed the same number of procedures this year as in 2019 and 2018.
Because of the recent surge in COVID cases in Ohio, bariatric procedures are once again on hold. “Elective operations that require hospital beds after surgery have been paused to provide beds for patients who have COVID-19,” he explained.
Small sample size, study should be repeated
For their study, Dr. Aminian and colleagues examined the records of 4,365 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Health System who tested positive for the virus between March 8 and July 22, 2020.
Of these, 1,003 had a body mass index of at least 35 mg/kg2; 482 had a BMI of at least 40. The team identified 33 patients who had previously undergone metabolic surgery, comprising 20 sleeve gastrectomies and 13 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses.
The surgical patients were propensity matched in a 1:10 ratio with nonsurgical control patients with a BMI of at least 40. The patients were matched on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, location, smoking status, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The mean BMI of surgical patients was 49.1 before their procedure. It fell to 37.2 by the time they tested positive for COVID-19. This compares with an average of 46.7 in the control group at the time they tested positive for the virus.
The team found that 18.2% of metabolic surgery patients were admitted to hospital versus 42.1% of control patients (P = .013).
Moreover, metabolic surgery patients did not require admission to the intensive care unit, nor did they require mechanical ventilation or dialysis, and none died. This compares with 13.0% (P = .021), 6.7% (P = .24), 1.5%, and 2.4%, respectively, of patients in the control group.
Multivariate analysis indicated that prior metabolic surgery was associated with lower hospital admission, at an odds ratio of 0.31 (P = .028), in comparison with control patients with obesity.
Acknowledging the limited sample size of their study, the team wrote: “As this study reflects findings early in the course of the pandemic, it will be of interest to repeat this study with larger data sets and later in the course of the pandemic.”
Continue as many aspects of obesity management as possible during pandemic
Dr. Aminian underlined that, for him, the take-home message from the study is that health care professionals should “ideally” continue all aspects of obesity management during the pandemic, including “medical management, behavioral therapy, lifestyle changes, and access to bariatric surgery.”
This is despite the fact that insurance coverage for bariatric surgery has “always been a challenge for many patients, since many insurance plans do not cover” bariatric procedures, he noted.
In July, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery should not be considered an elective procedure and should be resumed as soon as it’s safe to do so during any resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and the disease was less severe than among COVID patients with obesity who had not undergone the surgery, a new retrospective analysis shows.
The research was published in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases.
Because obesity is a well-known risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Ali Aminian, MD, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues decided to study whether weight-loss surgery had a bearing on outcomes of patients with COVID-19.
They matched 33 COVID-19 patients who had undergone metabolic surgery with 330 control patients with obesity who were infected with the virus during the first wave of the pandemic.
Surgery was associated with a 69% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized as a result of COVID-19. None of the surgery patients required intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis, and none died.
“Patients after bariatric surgery become significantly healthier and can fight the virus better,” said Dr. Aminian in a statement from his institution. “If confirmed by future studies, this can be added to the long list of health benefits of bariatric surgery.”
COVID-19 is a wake-up call for the consequences of obesity
Dr. Aminian said in an interview that COVID-19 is a “wake-up call to show the public and health care professionals that obesity is a major health problem and has multiple health consequences.”
More than 300 articles in the literature show that obesity is a major risk factor for poor outcomes following COVID-19 infection. Dr. Aminian said the pandemic has “improved public awareness about the consequences of obesity.”
Compared with last year at his institution, the intake of new patients “who would like to join a program to have surgery or have some tools to help them to lose weight is almost double,” he noted.
Furthermore, referrals to their unit from primary care physicians, as well as from endocrinologists and cardiologists, for bariatric surgery nearly doubled in recent months.
Although the unit had to stop all bariatric surgeries for around 6 weeks in April because of COVID-19, it has performed the same number of procedures this year as in 2019 and 2018.
Because of the recent surge in COVID cases in Ohio, bariatric procedures are once again on hold. “Elective operations that require hospital beds after surgery have been paused to provide beds for patients who have COVID-19,” he explained.
Small sample size, study should be repeated
For their study, Dr. Aminian and colleagues examined the records of 4,365 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Health System who tested positive for the virus between March 8 and July 22, 2020.
Of these, 1,003 had a body mass index of at least 35 mg/kg2; 482 had a BMI of at least 40. The team identified 33 patients who had previously undergone metabolic surgery, comprising 20 sleeve gastrectomies and 13 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses.
The surgical patients were propensity matched in a 1:10 ratio with nonsurgical control patients with a BMI of at least 40. The patients were matched on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, location, smoking status, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The mean BMI of surgical patients was 49.1 before their procedure. It fell to 37.2 by the time they tested positive for COVID-19. This compares with an average of 46.7 in the control group at the time they tested positive for the virus.
The team found that 18.2% of metabolic surgery patients were admitted to hospital versus 42.1% of control patients (P = .013).
Moreover, metabolic surgery patients did not require admission to the intensive care unit, nor did they require mechanical ventilation or dialysis, and none died. This compares with 13.0% (P = .021), 6.7% (P = .24), 1.5%, and 2.4%, respectively, of patients in the control group.
Multivariate analysis indicated that prior metabolic surgery was associated with lower hospital admission, at an odds ratio of 0.31 (P = .028), in comparison with control patients with obesity.
Acknowledging the limited sample size of their study, the team wrote: “As this study reflects findings early in the course of the pandemic, it will be of interest to repeat this study with larger data sets and later in the course of the pandemic.”
Continue as many aspects of obesity management as possible during pandemic
Dr. Aminian underlined that, for him, the take-home message from the study is that health care professionals should “ideally” continue all aspects of obesity management during the pandemic, including “medical management, behavioral therapy, lifestyle changes, and access to bariatric surgery.”
This is despite the fact that insurance coverage for bariatric surgery has “always been a challenge for many patients, since many insurance plans do not cover” bariatric procedures, he noted.
In July, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery should not be considered an elective procedure and should be resumed as soon as it’s safe to do so during any resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Zoom Zoom Zoom: An end-of-year update from a virtual psychiatrist
In mid-April, a month into pandemic life with a stay-at-home order, I wrote about my experiences as a virtual outpatient psychiatrist in private practice. It’s been 10 months now and with this tragic year drawing to a close, it seems like a good time for an update.
In that April column, I describe how I created a makeshift home office. This entailed pushing my son’s baseball card collection and dusty sports trophies to the side of the room, bringing in a desk and a rug, a house plant, and a statue of a Buddha. I enjoyed watching out the window behind my computer screen as the neighbors and their dogs walked by, and I loved seeing the tree out the window blossom into gorgeous flowers.
With time, my physical space has changed. The remnants of my son’s childhood have all been moved to a closet, artwork has been added to the wall behind me, and the space is now clearly an office, though my laptop remains propped on a pile of books so that no one is looking up my nose. The room, with four large windows facing north and west, has issues with temperature control. In an old house, the heat works all too well in the adjacent bedroom (while the rest of the occupants in other rooms freeze), but the office itself has no heat: I have added both a fan and a space heater, and there are some very cold days where I’ve propped open one of the windows. And with the shortened days, large windows on two walls have presented a challenge as the sun changes positions throughout the day – there are times when the sun’s rays streak across my face in such a way that I look rather ethereal, and between sessions I have lowered, raised, and adjusted the blinds to avoid this. I finally pulled off the thin metal venetian blinds and took them to Lowe’s, where a partially masked young woman cut me new blinds with larger slats. An ergonomic office chair has replaced the wicker Ikea chair I was using, and between all these machinations, I am now physically comfortable most of the time. I believe I am still a bit too pixelated on the screen, but my patients are not complaining, and when the natural lighting fades at 4:30 p.m., the overhead lighting is all wrong again. These all are things I never considered – or long ago addressed – in my real-life practice of psychiatry in a office I have loved for years.
With time, I’ve grown more comfortable working from home on a screen and there are things about this life I’ve grown to like. My husband no longer travels, my daughter – my gift of the pandemic – returned home from New York City where she was in her final months of graduate school, and these unexpected months with her (and her cat) have been a pleasure. There is something nice about being trapped at home with people I love, even if we are all in our respective places, in front of our separate screens. There has been time for long walks, trips to the beach, and long bike rides. And as my daughter now prepares to move to Denver, I have been heartened by the hope of vaccines, and the knowledge that I will likely be able to see her again in the coming months. The people are not the only ones who have benefited from this time at home together – I have no idea how we would have managed with our elderly dog if we were not home to care for him.
My life has become more efficient. I used to find myself aggravated when patients forgot their appointments, a not-infrequent occurrence. People no longer get caught in traffic, they come on time, and they don’t complain about my crowded parking lot. When there is down time, I use it more efficiently at home – a load of laundry gets done, I get a chance to turn on the news or exercise, or make dinner early. And because I have two other family members working from home, I am not the only one mixing work with chores or exercise.
While my medical colleagues who work in settings where they must see patients in person have struggled or functioned in some state of denial, I have felt safe and protected, a bit cocooned with my family in a house big enough to give us all space, in a neighborhood with sidewalks and places to walk, and to protect my sanity, I am lucky to have a patio that has now been equipped with lights, patio heaters, a fire pit, and socially distanced tables so that I can still see friends outside.
Telemedicine has added a new dimension to treatment. I’ve had family sessions with multiple people joining a zoom link from different locations – so much easier than coordinating a time when everyone can travel to my office. I’ve had patients call in from cars and from closets in search of privacy, and from their gardens and poolsides. I’ve met spouses, children, many a dog and cat, plus the more unusual of pets and farm animals, including a goat, ferret, lizard, African grey parrot, and guinea pigs.
These are the good things, and while I wish I could say it was all good, so much of what remains is laden with anxiety. My son lives nearby, but he has shared a house with a hospital worker for much of the past year and there were COVID scares, months at a time without so much as a hug, and my husband has not seen his parents or brother for a year now. There are the awkward waves or salutes with friends I once gave carefree hugs, the constant thoughts of how far away is that person standing, and each person’s “beliefs” about what is safe when we still don’t fully understand how this virus spreads. I worry for myself, I worry for my family and friends, and I worry for my patients when they tell me about behaviors that clearly are not safe.
At first, I found my work as a telepsychiatrist to be exhausting, and I assumed it was because my patients were now just faces, inches from my own eyes, and no longer diffused by a visual field that included my whole office and the opportunity to break eye contact while I still listened with full attention. This has gotten much better – I’ve adjusted to my on-screen relationships, but what has not gotten better is both the acuity, and sometimes the boredom.
Patients are struggling; they are sad, lonely, and missing the richness of their former lives. They miss friends, meeting new people, cultural experiences, diversity in how they spend their time, and travel. They have all the same human experiences of loss, illness, and grief, but with the added burden of struggling alone or within the confines of pandemic life that has destroyed our ability to mark events with social and religious customs that guide healing. People who had done well for years are now needing more, and those who were not doing well are doing worse. It makes for long days.
I mentioned boredom: With less time spent with other people, so many sessions are about COVID – who has it, who might have it, what people are doing to avoid it, and still, how they get their groceries. The second most popular psychotherapy topic includes what they are watching on Netflix, and as human beings trudging through this together, I have appreciated my patients’ suggestions as much as they have appreciated mine.* Life for all of us has come to be more about survival, and less about self-discovery and striving. Many sessions have started to feel the same from 1 hour to the next, in ways they never did before.
There are other aspects to telepsychiatry that I have found difficult. The site I have used most – Doxy.me – works well with some patients, but with others there are technical problems. Sessions freeze, the sound goes in or out, and we end up switching to another platform, which may or may not work better. Sometimes patients have the camera at odd angles, or they bounce a laptop on their knees to the point that I get seasick. One of my family members has said that I can sometimes be overheard, so I now have a radio playing classical music outside my door, and I often use earbuds so that the patient can’t be overheard and I speak more softly with them – this has all been good in terms of improving privacy, but after a while I find that it’s stressful to have people talking to me inside my own ears! These are little kinks, but when you do it for hours a day, they add up to a sense of being stressed in ways that in-person psychiatry does not lend itself to.
Finally, three seasons into my work-at-home life, I still have not found a new rhythm for some of the logistical aspects of private practice that came so easily in my office. My mail still goes to the office, the plants there still need water, my files and computer are there, but tasks that were once a seamless part of my work day now spill into my time off and I go into the office each week to file, log medications, and attend to the business of my practice. My smartphone, with its ability to e-prescribe, invoice, and fax, has made it possible for me to manage and certainly, outpatient psychiatrists are very lucky that we have the option to continue our work with patients remotely during such difficult times.
I have sent people for virtual intensive substance treatment, and to virtual couples’ counseling, and these remote treatments have been useful. The one treatment that has been very difficult for patients to negotiate has been outpatient electroconvulsive therapy – this requires coordination with another person to drive the patient to treatments (and to wait outside in the parking lot), and also for separate weekly COVID testing. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, which also is still being done in person, has not been any different – patients can drive themselves and the one center I referred to has not required preprocedure COVID testing.
What does the future hold? Will we ever go back to practicing the way we did? While some of my patients miss real-life therapy, most do not; they too like the added efficiency, getting treatment from the comfort of their home without the stress of finding the time to travel. I’ve taken on new patients during this time, and while I anticipated that it would be difficult, it has gone surprisingly well – people I have never met in real life talk to me with ease, and both psychotherapy and medication management have gone well. The one area that I have found most difficult is assessing tremors and dyskinesias, and one patient mentioned she has gained nearly 50 pounds over the past year – something I certainly would have noticed and attended to sooner in real life. I have mixed feelings about returning to a completely live practice. I think I would like a combination where I see all my patients in person once in a while, but would like to be able to offer some times where I see people virtually from home at least one day a week.
Time will tell how that plays out with insurers. My best guess is that, with the lowered no-show rates that everyone is seeing and the higher levels of depression and anxiety that people are having, this may have been a costly time for mental health care. At the same time, inpatient psychiatric units have decreased their capacity, and perhaps more efficient delivery of outpatient care has lowered the overall cost. I suppose we will wait to hear, but for many, the transition to virtual care has allowed many people to get treatment who would have otherwise gone without care.
In my April article, I mentioned that I was having daily Facetime check-in visits with a distressed patient who was on a COVID unit with pneumonia. Since then, I have had several more patients contract COVID, and many of my patients have had family members who have tested positive or become symptomatic with COVID. It has been nice to have sessions with people during this time, and thankfully, I have not had any more patients who have required hospitalization for the virus.
I still catch myself thinking that, of all the things I have worried about over the years, “pandemic” was never on my list. It seems so strange that I left my office on a Friday with no idea that I would not be returning to work the following Monday, or that life would change in such a radical way. As we leave this awful year behind and greet the new one with the hope that vaccines and a new administration might offer solutions, I’d like to wish my readers the best for a healthy, safe, and gentle New Year.
*My top viewing picks for now are “The Queen’s Gambit” (Netflix), and “A Place to Call Home” (Acorn).
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
In mid-April, a month into pandemic life with a stay-at-home order, I wrote about my experiences as a virtual outpatient psychiatrist in private practice. It’s been 10 months now and with this tragic year drawing to a close, it seems like a good time for an update.
In that April column, I describe how I created a makeshift home office. This entailed pushing my son’s baseball card collection and dusty sports trophies to the side of the room, bringing in a desk and a rug, a house plant, and a statue of a Buddha. I enjoyed watching out the window behind my computer screen as the neighbors and their dogs walked by, and I loved seeing the tree out the window blossom into gorgeous flowers.
With time, my physical space has changed. The remnants of my son’s childhood have all been moved to a closet, artwork has been added to the wall behind me, and the space is now clearly an office, though my laptop remains propped on a pile of books so that no one is looking up my nose. The room, with four large windows facing north and west, has issues with temperature control. In an old house, the heat works all too well in the adjacent bedroom (while the rest of the occupants in other rooms freeze), but the office itself has no heat: I have added both a fan and a space heater, and there are some very cold days where I’ve propped open one of the windows. And with the shortened days, large windows on two walls have presented a challenge as the sun changes positions throughout the day – there are times when the sun’s rays streak across my face in such a way that I look rather ethereal, and between sessions I have lowered, raised, and adjusted the blinds to avoid this. I finally pulled off the thin metal venetian blinds and took them to Lowe’s, where a partially masked young woman cut me new blinds with larger slats. An ergonomic office chair has replaced the wicker Ikea chair I was using, and between all these machinations, I am now physically comfortable most of the time. I believe I am still a bit too pixelated on the screen, but my patients are not complaining, and when the natural lighting fades at 4:30 p.m., the overhead lighting is all wrong again. These all are things I never considered – or long ago addressed – in my real-life practice of psychiatry in a office I have loved for years.
With time, I’ve grown more comfortable working from home on a screen and there are things about this life I’ve grown to like. My husband no longer travels, my daughter – my gift of the pandemic – returned home from New York City where she was in her final months of graduate school, and these unexpected months with her (and her cat) have been a pleasure. There is something nice about being trapped at home with people I love, even if we are all in our respective places, in front of our separate screens. There has been time for long walks, trips to the beach, and long bike rides. And as my daughter now prepares to move to Denver, I have been heartened by the hope of vaccines, and the knowledge that I will likely be able to see her again in the coming months. The people are not the only ones who have benefited from this time at home together – I have no idea how we would have managed with our elderly dog if we were not home to care for him.
My life has become more efficient. I used to find myself aggravated when patients forgot their appointments, a not-infrequent occurrence. People no longer get caught in traffic, they come on time, and they don’t complain about my crowded parking lot. When there is down time, I use it more efficiently at home – a load of laundry gets done, I get a chance to turn on the news or exercise, or make dinner early. And because I have two other family members working from home, I am not the only one mixing work with chores or exercise.
While my medical colleagues who work in settings where they must see patients in person have struggled or functioned in some state of denial, I have felt safe and protected, a bit cocooned with my family in a house big enough to give us all space, in a neighborhood with sidewalks and places to walk, and to protect my sanity, I am lucky to have a patio that has now been equipped with lights, patio heaters, a fire pit, and socially distanced tables so that I can still see friends outside.
Telemedicine has added a new dimension to treatment. I’ve had family sessions with multiple people joining a zoom link from different locations – so much easier than coordinating a time when everyone can travel to my office. I’ve had patients call in from cars and from closets in search of privacy, and from their gardens and poolsides. I’ve met spouses, children, many a dog and cat, plus the more unusual of pets and farm animals, including a goat, ferret, lizard, African grey parrot, and guinea pigs.
These are the good things, and while I wish I could say it was all good, so much of what remains is laden with anxiety. My son lives nearby, but he has shared a house with a hospital worker for much of the past year and there were COVID scares, months at a time without so much as a hug, and my husband has not seen his parents or brother for a year now. There are the awkward waves or salutes with friends I once gave carefree hugs, the constant thoughts of how far away is that person standing, and each person’s “beliefs” about what is safe when we still don’t fully understand how this virus spreads. I worry for myself, I worry for my family and friends, and I worry for my patients when they tell me about behaviors that clearly are not safe.
At first, I found my work as a telepsychiatrist to be exhausting, and I assumed it was because my patients were now just faces, inches from my own eyes, and no longer diffused by a visual field that included my whole office and the opportunity to break eye contact while I still listened with full attention. This has gotten much better – I’ve adjusted to my on-screen relationships, but what has not gotten better is both the acuity, and sometimes the boredom.
Patients are struggling; they are sad, lonely, and missing the richness of their former lives. They miss friends, meeting new people, cultural experiences, diversity in how they spend their time, and travel. They have all the same human experiences of loss, illness, and grief, but with the added burden of struggling alone or within the confines of pandemic life that has destroyed our ability to mark events with social and religious customs that guide healing. People who had done well for years are now needing more, and those who were not doing well are doing worse. It makes for long days.
I mentioned boredom: With less time spent with other people, so many sessions are about COVID – who has it, who might have it, what people are doing to avoid it, and still, how they get their groceries. The second most popular psychotherapy topic includes what they are watching on Netflix, and as human beings trudging through this together, I have appreciated my patients’ suggestions as much as they have appreciated mine.* Life for all of us has come to be more about survival, and less about self-discovery and striving. Many sessions have started to feel the same from 1 hour to the next, in ways they never did before.
There are other aspects to telepsychiatry that I have found difficult. The site I have used most – Doxy.me – works well with some patients, but with others there are technical problems. Sessions freeze, the sound goes in or out, and we end up switching to another platform, which may or may not work better. Sometimes patients have the camera at odd angles, or they bounce a laptop on their knees to the point that I get seasick. One of my family members has said that I can sometimes be overheard, so I now have a radio playing classical music outside my door, and I often use earbuds so that the patient can’t be overheard and I speak more softly with them – this has all been good in terms of improving privacy, but after a while I find that it’s stressful to have people talking to me inside my own ears! These are little kinks, but when you do it for hours a day, they add up to a sense of being stressed in ways that in-person psychiatry does not lend itself to.
Finally, three seasons into my work-at-home life, I still have not found a new rhythm for some of the logistical aspects of private practice that came so easily in my office. My mail still goes to the office, the plants there still need water, my files and computer are there, but tasks that were once a seamless part of my work day now spill into my time off and I go into the office each week to file, log medications, and attend to the business of my practice. My smartphone, with its ability to e-prescribe, invoice, and fax, has made it possible for me to manage and certainly, outpatient psychiatrists are very lucky that we have the option to continue our work with patients remotely during such difficult times.
I have sent people for virtual intensive substance treatment, and to virtual couples’ counseling, and these remote treatments have been useful. The one treatment that has been very difficult for patients to negotiate has been outpatient electroconvulsive therapy – this requires coordination with another person to drive the patient to treatments (and to wait outside in the parking lot), and also for separate weekly COVID testing. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, which also is still being done in person, has not been any different – patients can drive themselves and the one center I referred to has not required preprocedure COVID testing.
What does the future hold? Will we ever go back to practicing the way we did? While some of my patients miss real-life therapy, most do not; they too like the added efficiency, getting treatment from the comfort of their home without the stress of finding the time to travel. I’ve taken on new patients during this time, and while I anticipated that it would be difficult, it has gone surprisingly well – people I have never met in real life talk to me with ease, and both psychotherapy and medication management have gone well. The one area that I have found most difficult is assessing tremors and dyskinesias, and one patient mentioned she has gained nearly 50 pounds over the past year – something I certainly would have noticed and attended to sooner in real life. I have mixed feelings about returning to a completely live practice. I think I would like a combination where I see all my patients in person once in a while, but would like to be able to offer some times where I see people virtually from home at least one day a week.
Time will tell how that plays out with insurers. My best guess is that, with the lowered no-show rates that everyone is seeing and the higher levels of depression and anxiety that people are having, this may have been a costly time for mental health care. At the same time, inpatient psychiatric units have decreased their capacity, and perhaps more efficient delivery of outpatient care has lowered the overall cost. I suppose we will wait to hear, but for many, the transition to virtual care has allowed many people to get treatment who would have otherwise gone without care.
In my April article, I mentioned that I was having daily Facetime check-in visits with a distressed patient who was on a COVID unit with pneumonia. Since then, I have had several more patients contract COVID, and many of my patients have had family members who have tested positive or become symptomatic with COVID. It has been nice to have sessions with people during this time, and thankfully, I have not had any more patients who have required hospitalization for the virus.
I still catch myself thinking that, of all the things I have worried about over the years, “pandemic” was never on my list. It seems so strange that I left my office on a Friday with no idea that I would not be returning to work the following Monday, or that life would change in such a radical way. As we leave this awful year behind and greet the new one with the hope that vaccines and a new administration might offer solutions, I’d like to wish my readers the best for a healthy, safe, and gentle New Year.
*My top viewing picks for now are “The Queen’s Gambit” (Netflix), and “A Place to Call Home” (Acorn).
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
In mid-April, a month into pandemic life with a stay-at-home order, I wrote about my experiences as a virtual outpatient psychiatrist in private practice. It’s been 10 months now and with this tragic year drawing to a close, it seems like a good time for an update.
In that April column, I describe how I created a makeshift home office. This entailed pushing my son’s baseball card collection and dusty sports trophies to the side of the room, bringing in a desk and a rug, a house plant, and a statue of a Buddha. I enjoyed watching out the window behind my computer screen as the neighbors and their dogs walked by, and I loved seeing the tree out the window blossom into gorgeous flowers.
With time, my physical space has changed. The remnants of my son’s childhood have all been moved to a closet, artwork has been added to the wall behind me, and the space is now clearly an office, though my laptop remains propped on a pile of books so that no one is looking up my nose. The room, with four large windows facing north and west, has issues with temperature control. In an old house, the heat works all too well in the adjacent bedroom (while the rest of the occupants in other rooms freeze), but the office itself has no heat: I have added both a fan and a space heater, and there are some very cold days where I’ve propped open one of the windows. And with the shortened days, large windows on two walls have presented a challenge as the sun changes positions throughout the day – there are times when the sun’s rays streak across my face in such a way that I look rather ethereal, and between sessions I have lowered, raised, and adjusted the blinds to avoid this. I finally pulled off the thin metal venetian blinds and took them to Lowe’s, where a partially masked young woman cut me new blinds with larger slats. An ergonomic office chair has replaced the wicker Ikea chair I was using, and between all these machinations, I am now physically comfortable most of the time. I believe I am still a bit too pixelated on the screen, but my patients are not complaining, and when the natural lighting fades at 4:30 p.m., the overhead lighting is all wrong again. These all are things I never considered – or long ago addressed – in my real-life practice of psychiatry in a office I have loved for years.
With time, I’ve grown more comfortable working from home on a screen and there are things about this life I’ve grown to like. My husband no longer travels, my daughter – my gift of the pandemic – returned home from New York City where she was in her final months of graduate school, and these unexpected months with her (and her cat) have been a pleasure. There is something nice about being trapped at home with people I love, even if we are all in our respective places, in front of our separate screens. There has been time for long walks, trips to the beach, and long bike rides. And as my daughter now prepares to move to Denver, I have been heartened by the hope of vaccines, and the knowledge that I will likely be able to see her again in the coming months. The people are not the only ones who have benefited from this time at home together – I have no idea how we would have managed with our elderly dog if we were not home to care for him.
My life has become more efficient. I used to find myself aggravated when patients forgot their appointments, a not-infrequent occurrence. People no longer get caught in traffic, they come on time, and they don’t complain about my crowded parking lot. When there is down time, I use it more efficiently at home – a load of laundry gets done, I get a chance to turn on the news or exercise, or make dinner early. And because I have two other family members working from home, I am not the only one mixing work with chores or exercise.
While my medical colleagues who work in settings where they must see patients in person have struggled or functioned in some state of denial, I have felt safe and protected, a bit cocooned with my family in a house big enough to give us all space, in a neighborhood with sidewalks and places to walk, and to protect my sanity, I am lucky to have a patio that has now been equipped with lights, patio heaters, a fire pit, and socially distanced tables so that I can still see friends outside.
Telemedicine has added a new dimension to treatment. I’ve had family sessions with multiple people joining a zoom link from different locations – so much easier than coordinating a time when everyone can travel to my office. I’ve had patients call in from cars and from closets in search of privacy, and from their gardens and poolsides. I’ve met spouses, children, many a dog and cat, plus the more unusual of pets and farm animals, including a goat, ferret, lizard, African grey parrot, and guinea pigs.
These are the good things, and while I wish I could say it was all good, so much of what remains is laden with anxiety. My son lives nearby, but he has shared a house with a hospital worker for much of the past year and there were COVID scares, months at a time without so much as a hug, and my husband has not seen his parents or brother for a year now. There are the awkward waves or salutes with friends I once gave carefree hugs, the constant thoughts of how far away is that person standing, and each person’s “beliefs” about what is safe when we still don’t fully understand how this virus spreads. I worry for myself, I worry for my family and friends, and I worry for my patients when they tell me about behaviors that clearly are not safe.
At first, I found my work as a telepsychiatrist to be exhausting, and I assumed it was because my patients were now just faces, inches from my own eyes, and no longer diffused by a visual field that included my whole office and the opportunity to break eye contact while I still listened with full attention. This has gotten much better – I’ve adjusted to my on-screen relationships, but what has not gotten better is both the acuity, and sometimes the boredom.
Patients are struggling; they are sad, lonely, and missing the richness of their former lives. They miss friends, meeting new people, cultural experiences, diversity in how they spend their time, and travel. They have all the same human experiences of loss, illness, and grief, but with the added burden of struggling alone or within the confines of pandemic life that has destroyed our ability to mark events with social and religious customs that guide healing. People who had done well for years are now needing more, and those who were not doing well are doing worse. It makes for long days.
I mentioned boredom: With less time spent with other people, so many sessions are about COVID – who has it, who might have it, what people are doing to avoid it, and still, how they get their groceries. The second most popular psychotherapy topic includes what they are watching on Netflix, and as human beings trudging through this together, I have appreciated my patients’ suggestions as much as they have appreciated mine.* Life for all of us has come to be more about survival, and less about self-discovery and striving. Many sessions have started to feel the same from 1 hour to the next, in ways they never did before.
There are other aspects to telepsychiatry that I have found difficult. The site I have used most – Doxy.me – works well with some patients, but with others there are technical problems. Sessions freeze, the sound goes in or out, and we end up switching to another platform, which may or may not work better. Sometimes patients have the camera at odd angles, or they bounce a laptop on their knees to the point that I get seasick. One of my family members has said that I can sometimes be overheard, so I now have a radio playing classical music outside my door, and I often use earbuds so that the patient can’t be overheard and I speak more softly with them – this has all been good in terms of improving privacy, but after a while I find that it’s stressful to have people talking to me inside my own ears! These are little kinks, but when you do it for hours a day, they add up to a sense of being stressed in ways that in-person psychiatry does not lend itself to.
Finally, three seasons into my work-at-home life, I still have not found a new rhythm for some of the logistical aspects of private practice that came so easily in my office. My mail still goes to the office, the plants there still need water, my files and computer are there, but tasks that were once a seamless part of my work day now spill into my time off and I go into the office each week to file, log medications, and attend to the business of my practice. My smartphone, with its ability to e-prescribe, invoice, and fax, has made it possible for me to manage and certainly, outpatient psychiatrists are very lucky that we have the option to continue our work with patients remotely during such difficult times.
I have sent people for virtual intensive substance treatment, and to virtual couples’ counseling, and these remote treatments have been useful. The one treatment that has been very difficult for patients to negotiate has been outpatient electroconvulsive therapy – this requires coordination with another person to drive the patient to treatments (and to wait outside in the parking lot), and also for separate weekly COVID testing. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, which also is still being done in person, has not been any different – patients can drive themselves and the one center I referred to has not required preprocedure COVID testing.
What does the future hold? Will we ever go back to practicing the way we did? While some of my patients miss real-life therapy, most do not; they too like the added efficiency, getting treatment from the comfort of their home without the stress of finding the time to travel. I’ve taken on new patients during this time, and while I anticipated that it would be difficult, it has gone surprisingly well – people I have never met in real life talk to me with ease, and both psychotherapy and medication management have gone well. The one area that I have found most difficult is assessing tremors and dyskinesias, and one patient mentioned she has gained nearly 50 pounds over the past year – something I certainly would have noticed and attended to sooner in real life. I have mixed feelings about returning to a completely live practice. I think I would like a combination where I see all my patients in person once in a while, but would like to be able to offer some times where I see people virtually from home at least one day a week.
Time will tell how that plays out with insurers. My best guess is that, with the lowered no-show rates that everyone is seeing and the higher levels of depression and anxiety that people are having, this may have been a costly time for mental health care. At the same time, inpatient psychiatric units have decreased their capacity, and perhaps more efficient delivery of outpatient care has lowered the overall cost. I suppose we will wait to hear, but for many, the transition to virtual care has allowed many people to get treatment who would have otherwise gone without care.
In my April article, I mentioned that I was having daily Facetime check-in visits with a distressed patient who was on a COVID unit with pneumonia. Since then, I have had several more patients contract COVID, and many of my patients have had family members who have tested positive or become symptomatic with COVID. It has been nice to have sessions with people during this time, and thankfully, I have not had any more patients who have required hospitalization for the virus.
I still catch myself thinking that, of all the things I have worried about over the years, “pandemic” was never on my list. It seems so strange that I left my office on a Friday with no idea that I would not be returning to work the following Monday, or that life would change in such a radical way. As we leave this awful year behind and greet the new one with the hope that vaccines and a new administration might offer solutions, I’d like to wish my readers the best for a healthy, safe, and gentle New Year.
*My top viewing picks for now are “The Queen’s Gambit” (Netflix), and “A Place to Call Home” (Acorn).
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
COVID-19 vaccine rollout faces delays
If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.
In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.
“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.
So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.
Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.
The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.
Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.
Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.
“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”
To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.
In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.
“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.
So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.
Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.
The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.
Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.
Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.
“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”
To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.
In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.
“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.
So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.
Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.
The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.
Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.
Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.
“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”
To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
Anorexia and diarrhea top list of GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients
Patients with severe COVID-19 were significantly more likely than those with milder cases to have GI symptoms of anorexia and diarrhea, as well as abnormal liver function, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 4,500 patients.
Previous studies have shown that liver damage “was more likely to be observed in severe patients during the process of disease,” and other studies have shown varying degrees of liver insufficiency in COVID-19 patients, but gastrointestinal symptoms have not been well studied, wrote Zi-yuan Dong, MD, of China Medical University, Shenyang City, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 31 studies including 4,682 COVID-19 patients. Case collection was from Dec. 11, 2019, to Feb. 28, 2020. Median age among studies ranged from 36 to 62 years, and 55% of patients were male.
A total of 26 studies were analyzed for the prevalence of GI symptoms, specifically nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and anorexia. Of these, anorexia and diarrhea were significantly more common in COVID-19 patients, with prevalence of 17% and 8% respectively, (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, 14 of the studies included in the analysis assessed the prevalence of abnormal liver function based on increased levels of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin. Of these, increased alanine aminotransferase was the most common, occurring in 25% of patients, compared with increased AST (in 24%) and total bilirubin (in 13%).
When assessed by disease severity, patients with severe disease and those in the ICU were significantly more likely than general/non-ICU patients to have anorexia (odds ratio, 2.19), diarrhea (OR, 1.65), and abdominal pain (OR, 6.38). The severely ill patients were significantly more likely to have increased AST and ALT (OR, 2.98 and 2.66, respectively).
“However, there were no significant differences between severe/ICU group and general/non-ICU group for the prevalence of nausea and vomiting and liver disease,” the researchers said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the unclear classification of digestive system disease and liver disease in many of the studies, the small sample sizes, and the lack of data on pathology of the liver or colon in COVID-19 patients, the researchers noted.
More research is needed, but the findings suggest that COVID-19 could contribute to liver damage because the most significant abnormal liver function was increased ALT, they said.
Check liver function in cases with GI symptoms
“COVID patients can present asymptomatically or with nonspecific symptoms, including GI symptoms,” said Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., in an interview. “While the focus of management naturally is directed to the pulmonary consequences of the disease, it is important to evaluate the patient holistically,” he said.
“I do not think these findings have profound clinical implications because they identify relatively nonspecific symptoms that are commonly seen in patients in a number of other conditions,” noted Dr. Gellad. “The management of COVID should not change, with the exception of perhaps making sure to check for abnormal liver function tests in patients that present with more typical COVID symptoms,” he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the biologic mechanism by which COVID impacts systems outside of the lungs,” Dr. Gellad emphasized. “For example, there has been some very interesting work understanding the impact of COVID on the pancreas and risk for pancreatitis. That work is similarly needed to understand how COVID, outside of causing a general illness, specifically impacts the rest of the GI tract,” he said.
The study was supported by the Liaoning Science and Technology Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gellad had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Dong Z-Y et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001424.
Patients with severe COVID-19 were significantly more likely than those with milder cases to have GI symptoms of anorexia and diarrhea, as well as abnormal liver function, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 4,500 patients.
Previous studies have shown that liver damage “was more likely to be observed in severe patients during the process of disease,” and other studies have shown varying degrees of liver insufficiency in COVID-19 patients, but gastrointestinal symptoms have not been well studied, wrote Zi-yuan Dong, MD, of China Medical University, Shenyang City, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 31 studies including 4,682 COVID-19 patients. Case collection was from Dec. 11, 2019, to Feb. 28, 2020. Median age among studies ranged from 36 to 62 years, and 55% of patients were male.
A total of 26 studies were analyzed for the prevalence of GI symptoms, specifically nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and anorexia. Of these, anorexia and diarrhea were significantly more common in COVID-19 patients, with prevalence of 17% and 8% respectively, (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, 14 of the studies included in the analysis assessed the prevalence of abnormal liver function based on increased levels of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin. Of these, increased alanine aminotransferase was the most common, occurring in 25% of patients, compared with increased AST (in 24%) and total bilirubin (in 13%).
When assessed by disease severity, patients with severe disease and those in the ICU were significantly more likely than general/non-ICU patients to have anorexia (odds ratio, 2.19), diarrhea (OR, 1.65), and abdominal pain (OR, 6.38). The severely ill patients were significantly more likely to have increased AST and ALT (OR, 2.98 and 2.66, respectively).
“However, there were no significant differences between severe/ICU group and general/non-ICU group for the prevalence of nausea and vomiting and liver disease,” the researchers said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the unclear classification of digestive system disease and liver disease in many of the studies, the small sample sizes, and the lack of data on pathology of the liver or colon in COVID-19 patients, the researchers noted.
More research is needed, but the findings suggest that COVID-19 could contribute to liver damage because the most significant abnormal liver function was increased ALT, they said.
Check liver function in cases with GI symptoms
“COVID patients can present asymptomatically or with nonspecific symptoms, including GI symptoms,” said Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., in an interview. “While the focus of management naturally is directed to the pulmonary consequences of the disease, it is important to evaluate the patient holistically,” he said.
“I do not think these findings have profound clinical implications because they identify relatively nonspecific symptoms that are commonly seen in patients in a number of other conditions,” noted Dr. Gellad. “The management of COVID should not change, with the exception of perhaps making sure to check for abnormal liver function tests in patients that present with more typical COVID symptoms,” he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the biologic mechanism by which COVID impacts systems outside of the lungs,” Dr. Gellad emphasized. “For example, there has been some very interesting work understanding the impact of COVID on the pancreas and risk for pancreatitis. That work is similarly needed to understand how COVID, outside of causing a general illness, specifically impacts the rest of the GI tract,” he said.
The study was supported by the Liaoning Science and Technology Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gellad had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Dong Z-Y et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001424.
Patients with severe COVID-19 were significantly more likely than those with milder cases to have GI symptoms of anorexia and diarrhea, as well as abnormal liver function, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 4,500 patients.
Previous studies have shown that liver damage “was more likely to be observed in severe patients during the process of disease,” and other studies have shown varying degrees of liver insufficiency in COVID-19 patients, but gastrointestinal symptoms have not been well studied, wrote Zi-yuan Dong, MD, of China Medical University, Shenyang City, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 31 studies including 4,682 COVID-19 patients. Case collection was from Dec. 11, 2019, to Feb. 28, 2020. Median age among studies ranged from 36 to 62 years, and 55% of patients were male.
A total of 26 studies were analyzed for the prevalence of GI symptoms, specifically nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and anorexia. Of these, anorexia and diarrhea were significantly more common in COVID-19 patients, with prevalence of 17% and 8% respectively, (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, 14 of the studies included in the analysis assessed the prevalence of abnormal liver function based on increased levels of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin. Of these, increased alanine aminotransferase was the most common, occurring in 25% of patients, compared with increased AST (in 24%) and total bilirubin (in 13%).
When assessed by disease severity, patients with severe disease and those in the ICU were significantly more likely than general/non-ICU patients to have anorexia (odds ratio, 2.19), diarrhea (OR, 1.65), and abdominal pain (OR, 6.38). The severely ill patients were significantly more likely to have increased AST and ALT (OR, 2.98 and 2.66, respectively).
“However, there were no significant differences between severe/ICU group and general/non-ICU group for the prevalence of nausea and vomiting and liver disease,” the researchers said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the unclear classification of digestive system disease and liver disease in many of the studies, the small sample sizes, and the lack of data on pathology of the liver or colon in COVID-19 patients, the researchers noted.
More research is needed, but the findings suggest that COVID-19 could contribute to liver damage because the most significant abnormal liver function was increased ALT, they said.
Check liver function in cases with GI symptoms
“COVID patients can present asymptomatically or with nonspecific symptoms, including GI symptoms,” said Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., in an interview. “While the focus of management naturally is directed to the pulmonary consequences of the disease, it is important to evaluate the patient holistically,” he said.
“I do not think these findings have profound clinical implications because they identify relatively nonspecific symptoms that are commonly seen in patients in a number of other conditions,” noted Dr. Gellad. “The management of COVID should not change, with the exception of perhaps making sure to check for abnormal liver function tests in patients that present with more typical COVID symptoms,” he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the biologic mechanism by which COVID impacts systems outside of the lungs,” Dr. Gellad emphasized. “For example, there has been some very interesting work understanding the impact of COVID on the pancreas and risk for pancreatitis. That work is similarly needed to understand how COVID, outside of causing a general illness, specifically impacts the rest of the GI tract,” he said.
The study was supported by the Liaoning Science and Technology Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gellad had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Dong Z-Y et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001424.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY