In mid-March, the Society of Hospital Medicine board of directors concluded that it was impossible for SHM to move forward with Hospital Medicine 2020 because of the continued spread of virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Given the most recent information available from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and the World Health Organization about the evolving global pandemic and the number of institutions that had travel bans in place, SHM leadership concluded that canceling the Annual Conference was the only path forward.

“Canceling the conference during this unprecedented time is the right thing to do,” said Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, course director for HM20. “With the evolving circumstances out of our control, there were risks to our community as it would have gathered, communities we connect with on our travels, and our home communities and hospitals – canceling was the best way to mitigate these risks. Through it all, I couldn’t have asked for a better leadership team and the larger SHM community for their support.”

Because hospitalists are on the front lines of patient care at their institutions, they will be needed more than ever as the pandemic continues to grow in order to manage care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and other illnesses. As the only medical society dedicated to hospital medicine, SHM will continue to support hospitalists with resources and research specific to COVID-19 and its impact on the practice of hospital medicine.

SHM is aware that this necessary cancellation impacts many from both a financial and logistical perspective. As such, SHM will refund all conference registration fees for HM20 in full. SHM is also providing the opportunity to defer your HM20 registration to HM21, taking place May 4-7, 2021 in Las Vegas, or Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2020, taking place July 23-26, 2020 in Lake Buena Vista, Fla.

For accommodation or travel cancellations, SHM requests that individuals please refer to their respective hotel or carrier’s customer service team and related cancellation policies.

To provide the world-class education that conference attendees have come to expect from SHM over the years, the SHM team is exploring virtual options to offer select content originally anticipated at HM20. SHM also offers online education via the SHM Learning Portal and the new SHM Education app.

Visit shmannualconference.org/faqs for a full list of FAQs. For additional questions, please contact [email protected].

SHM will continue to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic and provide hospitalists with useful resources in this time of need at hospitalmedicine.org/coronavirus. For news coverage of COVID-19, visit https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/coronavirus-updates.

In mid-March, the Society of Hospital Medicine board of directors concluded that it was impossible for SHM to move forward with Hospital Medicine 2020 because of the continued spread of virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Given the most recent information available from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and the World Health Organization about the evolving global pandemic and the number of institutions that had travel bans in place, SHM leadership concluded that canceling the Annual Conference was the only path forward.

“Canceling the conference during this unprecedented time is the right thing to do,” said Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, course director for HM20. “With the evolving circumstances out of our control, there were risks to our community as it would have gathered, communities we connect with on our travels, and our home communities and hospitals – canceling was the best way to mitigate these risks. Through it all, I couldn’t have asked for a better leadership team and the larger SHM community for their support.”

Because hospitalists are on the front lines of patient care at their institutions, they will be needed more than ever as the pandemic continues to grow in order to manage care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and other illnesses. As the only medical society dedicated to hospital medicine, SHM will continue to support hospitalists with resources and research specific to COVID-19 and its impact on the practice of hospital medicine.

SHM is aware that this necessary cancellation impacts many from both a financial and logistical perspective. As such, SHM will refund all conference registration fees for HM20 in full. SHM is also providing the opportunity to defer your HM20 registration to HM21, taking place May 4-7, 2021 in Las Vegas, or Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2020, taking place July 23-26, 2020 in Lake Buena Vista, Fla.

For accommodation or travel cancellations, SHM requests that individuals please refer to their respective hotel or carrier’s customer service team and related cancellation policies.

To provide the world-class education that conference attendees have come to expect from SHM over the years, the SHM team is exploring virtual options to offer select content originally anticipated at HM20. SHM also offers online education via the SHM Learning Portal and the new SHM Education app.

Visit shmannualconference.org/faqs for a full list of FAQs. For additional questions, please contact [email protected].

SHM will continue to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic and provide hospitalists with useful resources in this time of need at hospitalmedicine.org/coronavirus. For news coverage of COVID-19, visit https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/coronavirus-updates.

In mid-March, the Society of Hospital Medicine board of directors concluded that it was impossible for SHM to move forward with Hospital Medicine 2020 because of the continued spread of virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Given the most recent information available from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and the World Health Organization about the evolving global pandemic and the number of institutions that had travel bans in place, SHM leadership concluded that canceling the Annual Conference was the only path forward.

“Canceling the conference during this unprecedented time is the right thing to do,” said Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, course director for HM20. “With the evolving circumstances out of our control, there were risks to our community as it would have gathered, communities we connect with on our travels, and our home communities and hospitals – canceling was the best way to mitigate these risks. Through it all, I couldn’t have asked for a better leadership team and the larger SHM community for their support.”

Because hospitalists are on the front lines of patient care at their institutions, they will be needed more than ever as the pandemic continues to grow in order to manage care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and other illnesses. As the only medical society dedicated to hospital medicine, SHM will continue to support hospitalists with resources and research specific to COVID-19 and its impact on the practice of hospital medicine.

SHM is aware that this necessary cancellation impacts many from both a financial and logistical perspective. As such, SHM will refund all conference registration fees for HM20 in full. SHM is also providing the opportunity to defer your HM20 registration to HM21, taking place May 4-7, 2021 in Las Vegas, or Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2020, taking place July 23-26, 2020 in Lake Buena Vista, Fla.

For accommodation or travel cancellations, SHM requests that individuals please refer to their respective hotel or carrier’s customer service team and related cancellation policies.

To provide the world-class education that conference attendees have come to expect from SHM over the years, the SHM team is exploring virtual options to offer select content originally anticipated at HM20. SHM also offers online education via the SHM Learning Portal and the new SHM Education app.

Visit shmannualconference.org/faqs for a full list of FAQs. For additional questions, please contact [email protected].

SHM will continue to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic and provide hospitalists with useful resources in this time of need at hospitalmedicine.org/coronavirus. For news coverage of COVID-19, visit https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/coronavirus-updates.

Average measures of bone mineral density were similar for individuals with high-trauma and low-trauma fractures, and both were significantly distinct from those with no fracture history, based on data from a cohort study of adults aged 40 years and older.

©eranicle/Thinkstock

In the past, low-trauma fractures have typically been associated with osteoporosis, wrote William D. Leslie, MD, of the University of Manitoba, Canada, and his colleagues. However, features distinguishing between low- and high-trauma fractures are often arbitrary and “empirical data have questioned whether distinguishing low-trauma from high-trauma fractures is clinically useful for purposes of risk assessment and treatment,” they wrote.

In a study published in Osteoporosis International, the researchers reviewed data from 64,626 individuals with no prior fracture, 858 with high-trauma fractures, and 14,758 with low-trauma fractures. Overall, the average BMD Z-scores for individuals with no previous fracture were slightly positive, while those with either a high-trauma or low-trauma fracture were negative. The scores for individuals with high-trauma fractures or major osteoporotic fractures were similar to those with low-trauma fractures, and significantly lower (P less than .001) than among individuals with no prior fractures.

The study population included adults aged 40 years and older with baseline DXA scans between Jan. 1, 1996, and Mar. 31, 2016. Those with high-trauma fractures were younger than those with low-trauma fractures (65 years vs. 67 years), and fewer individuals with high-trauma fractures were women (77% vs. 87%).

Both high-trauma and low-trauma fractures were similarly and significantly associated with increased risk for incident major osteoporotic fractures (adjusted hazard ratios 1.31 and 1.55, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including incomplete data on external injury codes, the retrospective study design, and the lack of analysis of the time since prior fractures, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, long-term follow-up, and large numbers of incident fractures, they wrote.

The results support data from previous studies and support “the inclusion of high-trauma clinical fractures in clinical assessment for underlying osteoporosis and in the evaluation for intervention to reduce future fracture risk,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Steven R. Cummings, MD, of California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, and Richard Eastell, MD, of the University of Sheffield, England, wrote that the practice of rating fractures according to degree of trauma should be eliminated.

“The study adds evidence to the case that it is time to abandon the mistaken beliefs that fractures rated as high trauma are not associated with decreased BMD, indicate no higher risk of subsequent fracture, or are less likely to be prevented by treatments for osteoporosis,” they wrote.

Describing some fractures as due to trauma reinforces the mistaken belief that the fractures are simply due to the trauma, not decreased bone strength, they noted.

“Indeed, we recommend that people stop attempting to rate or record degree of trauma because such ratings are at best inaccurate and would promote the continued neglect of those patients who are misclassified as having fractures that do not warrant evaluation and treatment,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Leslie, the study’s first author, reported having no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Cummings disclosed consultancy and grant funding from Amgen and Radius. Dr. Eastell disclosed consultancy funding from IDS, Roche Diagnostics, GSK Nutrition, FNIH, Mereo, Lilly, Sandoz, Nittobo, Abbvie, Samsung, and Haoma Medica and grant funding from Nittobo, IDS, Roche, Amgen, and Alexion.

SOURCE: Leslie WD et al. Osteroporos Int. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05274-2.

Average measures of bone mineral density were similar for individuals with high-trauma and low-trauma fractures, and both were significantly distinct from those with no fracture history, based on data from a cohort study of adults aged 40 years and older.

©eranicle/Thinkstock

In the past, low-trauma fractures have typically been associated with osteoporosis, wrote William D. Leslie, MD, of the University of Manitoba, Canada, and his colleagues. However, features distinguishing between low- and high-trauma fractures are often arbitrary and “empirical data have questioned whether distinguishing low-trauma from high-trauma fractures is clinically useful for purposes of risk assessment and treatment,” they wrote.

In a study published in Osteoporosis International, the researchers reviewed data from 64,626 individuals with no prior fracture, 858 with high-trauma fractures, and 14,758 with low-trauma fractures. Overall, the average BMD Z-scores for individuals with no previous fracture were slightly positive, while those with either a high-trauma or low-trauma fracture were negative. The scores for individuals with high-trauma fractures or major osteoporotic fractures were similar to those with low-trauma fractures, and significantly lower (P less than .001) than among individuals with no prior fractures.

The study population included adults aged 40 years and older with baseline DXA scans between Jan. 1, 1996, and Mar. 31, 2016. Those with high-trauma fractures were younger than those with low-trauma fractures (65 years vs. 67 years), and fewer individuals with high-trauma fractures were women (77% vs. 87%).

Both high-trauma and low-trauma fractures were similarly and significantly associated with increased risk for incident major osteoporotic fractures (adjusted hazard ratios 1.31 and 1.55, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including incomplete data on external injury codes, the retrospective study design, and the lack of analysis of the time since prior fractures, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, long-term follow-up, and large numbers of incident fractures, they wrote.

The results support data from previous studies and support “the inclusion of high-trauma clinical fractures in clinical assessment for underlying osteoporosis and in the evaluation for intervention to reduce future fracture risk,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Steven R. Cummings, MD, of California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, and Richard Eastell, MD, of the University of Sheffield, England, wrote that the practice of rating fractures according to degree of trauma should be eliminated.

“The study adds evidence to the case that it is time to abandon the mistaken beliefs that fractures rated as high trauma are not associated with decreased BMD, indicate no higher risk of subsequent fracture, or are less likely to be prevented by treatments for osteoporosis,” they wrote.

Describing some fractures as due to trauma reinforces the mistaken belief that the fractures are simply due to the trauma, not decreased bone strength, they noted.

“Indeed, we recommend that people stop attempting to rate or record degree of trauma because such ratings are at best inaccurate and would promote the continued neglect of those patients who are misclassified as having fractures that do not warrant evaluation and treatment,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Leslie, the study’s first author, reported having no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Cummings disclosed consultancy and grant funding from Amgen and Radius. Dr. Eastell disclosed consultancy funding from IDS, Roche Diagnostics, GSK Nutrition, FNIH, Mereo, Lilly, Sandoz, Nittobo, Abbvie, Samsung, and Haoma Medica and grant funding from Nittobo, IDS, Roche, Amgen, and Alexion.

SOURCE: Leslie WD et al. Osteroporos Int. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05274-2.

Average measures of bone mineral density were similar for individuals with high-trauma and low-trauma fractures, and both were significantly distinct from those with no fracture history, based on data from a cohort study of adults aged 40 years and older.

©eranicle/Thinkstock

In the past, low-trauma fractures have typically been associated with osteoporosis, wrote William D. Leslie, MD, of the University of Manitoba, Canada, and his colleagues. However, features distinguishing between low- and high-trauma fractures are often arbitrary and “empirical data have questioned whether distinguishing low-trauma from high-trauma fractures is clinically useful for purposes of risk assessment and treatment,” they wrote.

In a study published in Osteoporosis International, the researchers reviewed data from 64,626 individuals with no prior fracture, 858 with high-trauma fractures, and 14,758 with low-trauma fractures. Overall, the average BMD Z-scores for individuals with no previous fracture were slightly positive, while those with either a high-trauma or low-trauma fracture were negative. The scores for individuals with high-trauma fractures or major osteoporotic fractures were similar to those with low-trauma fractures, and significantly lower (P less than .001) than among individuals with no prior fractures.

The study population included adults aged 40 years and older with baseline DXA scans between Jan. 1, 1996, and Mar. 31, 2016. Those with high-trauma fractures were younger than those with low-trauma fractures (65 years vs. 67 years), and fewer individuals with high-trauma fractures were women (77% vs. 87%).

Both high-trauma and low-trauma fractures were similarly and significantly associated with increased risk for incident major osteoporotic fractures (adjusted hazard ratios 1.31 and 1.55, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including incomplete data on external injury codes, the retrospective study design, and the lack of analysis of the time since prior fractures, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, long-term follow-up, and large numbers of incident fractures, they wrote.

The results support data from previous studies and support “the inclusion of high-trauma clinical fractures in clinical assessment for underlying osteoporosis and in the evaluation for intervention to reduce future fracture risk,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Steven R. Cummings, MD, of California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, and Richard Eastell, MD, of the University of Sheffield, England, wrote that the practice of rating fractures according to degree of trauma should be eliminated.

“The study adds evidence to the case that it is time to abandon the mistaken beliefs that fractures rated as high trauma are not associated with decreased BMD, indicate no higher risk of subsequent fracture, or are less likely to be prevented by treatments for osteoporosis,” they wrote.

Describing some fractures as due to trauma reinforces the mistaken belief that the fractures are simply due to the trauma, not decreased bone strength, they noted.

“Indeed, we recommend that people stop attempting to rate or record degree of trauma because such ratings are at best inaccurate and would promote the continued neglect of those patients who are misclassified as having fractures that do not warrant evaluation and treatment,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Leslie, the study’s first author, reported having no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Cummings disclosed consultancy and grant funding from Amgen and Radius. Dr. Eastell disclosed consultancy funding from IDS, Roche Diagnostics, GSK Nutrition, FNIH, Mereo, Lilly, Sandoz, Nittobo, Abbvie, Samsung, and Haoma Medica and grant funding from Nittobo, IDS, Roche, Amgen, and Alexion.

SOURCE: Leslie WD et al. Osteroporos Int. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05274-2.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Cellex an emergency use authorization to market a rapid antibody test for COVID-19, the first antibody test released amidst the pandemic.

“It is reasonable to believe that your product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19,” and “there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative,” the agency said in a letter to Cellex.

A drop of serum, plasma, or whole blood is placed into a well on a small cartridge, and the results are read 15-20 minutes later; lines indicate the presence of IgM, IgG, or both antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Of 128 samples confirmed positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in premarket testing, 120 tested positive by IgG, IgM, or both. Of 250 confirmed negative, 239 were negative by the rapid test.

The numbers translated to a positive percent agreement with RT-PCR of 93.8% (95% CI: 88.06-97.26%) and a negative percent agreement of 96.4% (95% CI: 92.26-97.78%), according to labeling.

“Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the labeling states.

Negative results do not rule out infection; antibodies might not have had enough time to form or the virus could have had a minor amino acid mutation in the epitope recognized by the antibodies screened for in the test. False positives can occur due to cross-reactivity with antibodies from previous infections, such as from other coronaviruses.

Labeling suggests that people who test negative should be checked again in a few days, and positive results should be confirmed by other methods. Also, the intensity of the test lines do not necessarily correlate with SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers.

As part of its authorization, the FDA waived good manufacturing practice requirements, but stipulated that advertising must state that the test has not been formally approved by the agency.

Testing is limited to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified labs. Positive results are required to be reported to public health authorities. The test can be ordered through Cellex distributors or directly from the company.

IgM antibodies are generally detectable several days after the initial infection, while IgG antibodies take longer. It’s not known how long COVID-19 antibodies persist after the infection has cleared, the agency said.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Cellex an emergency use authorization to market a rapid antibody test for COVID-19, the first antibody test released amidst the pandemic.

“It is reasonable to believe that your product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19,” and “there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative,” the agency said in a letter to Cellex.

A drop of serum, plasma, or whole blood is placed into a well on a small cartridge, and the results are read 15-20 minutes later; lines indicate the presence of IgM, IgG, or both antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Of 128 samples confirmed positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in premarket testing, 120 tested positive by IgG, IgM, or both. Of 250 confirmed negative, 239 were negative by the rapid test.

The numbers translated to a positive percent agreement with RT-PCR of 93.8% (95% CI: 88.06-97.26%) and a negative percent agreement of 96.4% (95% CI: 92.26-97.78%), according to labeling.

“Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the labeling states.

Negative results do not rule out infection; antibodies might not have had enough time to form or the virus could have had a minor amino acid mutation in the epitope recognized by the antibodies screened for in the test. False positives can occur due to cross-reactivity with antibodies from previous infections, such as from other coronaviruses.

Labeling suggests that people who test negative should be checked again in a few days, and positive results should be confirmed by other methods. Also, the intensity of the test lines do not necessarily correlate with SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers.

As part of its authorization, the FDA waived good manufacturing practice requirements, but stipulated that advertising must state that the test has not been formally approved by the agency.

Testing is limited to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified labs. Positive results are required to be reported to public health authorities. The test can be ordered through Cellex distributors or directly from the company.

IgM antibodies are generally detectable several days after the initial infection, while IgG antibodies take longer. It’s not known how long COVID-19 antibodies persist after the infection has cleared, the agency said.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Cellex an emergency use authorization to market a rapid antibody test for COVID-19, the first antibody test released amidst the pandemic.

“It is reasonable to believe that your product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19,” and “there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative,” the agency said in a letter to Cellex.

A drop of serum, plasma, or whole blood is placed into a well on a small cartridge, and the results are read 15-20 minutes later; lines indicate the presence of IgM, IgG, or both antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Of 128 samples confirmed positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in premarket testing, 120 tested positive by IgG, IgM, or both. Of 250 confirmed negative, 239 were negative by the rapid test.

The numbers translated to a positive percent agreement with RT-PCR of 93.8% (95% CI: 88.06-97.26%) and a negative percent agreement of 96.4% (95% CI: 92.26-97.78%), according to labeling.

“Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the labeling states.

Negative results do not rule out infection; antibodies might not have had enough time to form or the virus could have had a minor amino acid mutation in the epitope recognized by the antibodies screened for in the test. False positives can occur due to cross-reactivity with antibodies from previous infections, such as from other coronaviruses.

Labeling suggests that people who test negative should be checked again in a few days, and positive results should be confirmed by other methods. Also, the intensity of the test lines do not necessarily correlate with SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers.

As part of its authorization, the FDA waived good manufacturing practice requirements, but stipulated that advertising must state that the test has not been formally approved by the agency.

Testing is limited to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified labs. Positive results are required to be reported to public health authorities. The test can be ordered through Cellex distributors or directly from the company.

IgM antibodies are generally detectable several days after the initial infection, while IgG antibodies take longer. It’s not known how long COVID-19 antibodies persist after the infection has cleared, the agency said.

[email protected]

As the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps across the United States, it is increasingly affecting those who are not infected. Social bonds are being broken, businesses are closing, jobs are being lost, and the stress is mounting.

In a poll conducted March 25-30, 45% of Americans said that stress resulting from the pandemic is having a negative impact on their mental health, compared with 32% expressing that view just 2 weeks earlier, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported April 2.

In the later survey, the effect looked like this: 19% of all respondents said that the pandemic has had a major negative impact and 26% said it has been minor so far. Women were more likely than men (24% vs. 15%) to report a major impact, as were blacks and Hispanic adults (both at 24%) compared with whites (17%), the KFF investigators said.

More Hispanic (44%) and black (42%) respondents also said that they had already lost their job, lost income, or had their hours reduced without pay as a result of the pandemic, compared with whites (36%). Among all respondents, 26% had lost income from a job or business and 28% had lost their job, been laid off, or had their hours reduced without pay, according to KFF.

A majority of respondents (57%) reported “being worried they will put themselves at risk of exposure to coronavirus because they can’t afford to stay home and miss work,” the researchers said. That figure is up from 35% in the earlier survey.

Anxiety about work-related exposure was even higher among hourly workers or those who get paid by the job (61%) and among employed adults who earn less than $40,000 annually (72%), they reported.

Overall, 72% of respondents said that their lives have been disrupted “a lot” or “some” by the coronavirus outbreak, and that is a jump of 32 percentage points over the previous poll, the investigators noted.

The disruption is expected to continue, it seems, as 74% believe that the worst is yet to come “in spite of the health, social and economic upheaval that Americans are already experiencing,” they wrote.

[email protected]

As the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps across the United States, it is increasingly affecting those who are not infected. Social bonds are being broken, businesses are closing, jobs are being lost, and the stress is mounting.

In a poll conducted March 25-30, 45% of Americans said that stress resulting from the pandemic is having a negative impact on their mental health, compared with 32% expressing that view just 2 weeks earlier, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported April 2.

In the later survey, the effect looked like this: 19% of all respondents said that the pandemic has had a major negative impact and 26% said it has been minor so far. Women were more likely than men (24% vs. 15%) to report a major impact, as were blacks and Hispanic adults (both at 24%) compared with whites (17%), the KFF investigators said.

More Hispanic (44%) and black (42%) respondents also said that they had already lost their job, lost income, or had their hours reduced without pay as a result of the pandemic, compared with whites (36%). Among all respondents, 26% had lost income from a job or business and 28% had lost their job, been laid off, or had their hours reduced without pay, according to KFF.

A majority of respondents (57%) reported “being worried they will put themselves at risk of exposure to coronavirus because they can’t afford to stay home and miss work,” the researchers said. That figure is up from 35% in the earlier survey.

Anxiety about work-related exposure was even higher among hourly workers or those who get paid by the job (61%) and among employed adults who earn less than $40,000 annually (72%), they reported.

Overall, 72% of respondents said that their lives have been disrupted “a lot” or “some” by the coronavirus outbreak, and that is a jump of 32 percentage points over the previous poll, the investigators noted.

The disruption is expected to continue, it seems, as 74% believe that the worst is yet to come “in spite of the health, social and economic upheaval that Americans are already experiencing,” they wrote.

[email protected]

As the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps across the United States, it is increasingly affecting those who are not infected. Social bonds are being broken, businesses are closing, jobs are being lost, and the stress is mounting.

In a poll conducted March 25-30, 45% of Americans said that stress resulting from the pandemic is having a negative impact on their mental health, compared with 32% expressing that view just 2 weeks earlier, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported April 2.

In the later survey, the effect looked like this: 19% of all respondents said that the pandemic has had a major negative impact and 26% said it has been minor so far. Women were more likely than men (24% vs. 15%) to report a major impact, as were blacks and Hispanic adults (both at 24%) compared with whites (17%), the KFF investigators said.

More Hispanic (44%) and black (42%) respondents also said that they had already lost their job, lost income, or had their hours reduced without pay as a result of the pandemic, compared with whites (36%). Among all respondents, 26% had lost income from a job or business and 28% had lost their job, been laid off, or had their hours reduced without pay, according to KFF.

A majority of respondents (57%) reported “being worried they will put themselves at risk of exposure to coronavirus because they can’t afford to stay home and miss work,” the researchers said. That figure is up from 35% in the earlier survey.

Anxiety about work-related exposure was even higher among hourly workers or those who get paid by the job (61%) and among employed adults who earn less than $40,000 annually (72%), they reported.

Overall, 72% of respondents said that their lives have been disrupted “a lot” or “some” by the coronavirus outbreak, and that is a jump of 32 percentage points over the previous poll, the investigators noted.

The disruption is expected to continue, it seems, as 74% believe that the worst is yet to come “in spite of the health, social and economic upheaval that Americans are already experiencing,” they wrote.

[email protected]

The growing threat of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), now commonly known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has forced Americans to stay home due to quarantine, especially older individuals and those who are immunocompromised or have an underlying health problem such as pulmonary or cardiac disease. The federal government’s estimated $2 trillion CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act)¹ will provide a much-needed boost to health care and the economy; prior recent legislation approved an $8.6 billion emergency relief bill,² HR 6074 (Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020), which expands Medicare coverage of telehealth to patients in their home rather than having them travel to a designated site, covers both established and new patients, allows physicians to waive or reduce co-payments and cost-sharing requirements, and reimburses the same as an in-person visit.

Federal emergency legislation temporarily relaxed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),^3,4 allowing physicians to use Facetime and Skype for Medicare patients. In addition, Medicare will reimburse telehealth services for out-of-state-providers; however, cross-state licensure is governed by the patient’s home state.⁵ As of March 25, 2020, emergency legislation to temporarily allow out-of-state physicians to provide care, whether or not it relates to COVID-19, was enacted in 13 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and North Dakota.⁶ Ongoing legislation is rapidly changing; for daily updates on licensing laws, refer to the Federation of State Medical Boards website. Check your own institutional policies and malpractice provider prior to offering telehealth, as local laws and regulations may vary. Herein, we offer suggestions for using teledermatology.

Reimbursement

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia—had true payment parity laws,⁷ which reimbursed telehealth as a regular office visit using modifier -95. Several states have enacted emergency telehealth expansion laws to discourage COVID-19 spread⁸; some states such as New Jersey now prohibit co-payments or out-of-pocket deductibles from all in-network insurance plans (commercial Medicare and Medicaid).^9,10 Updated legislation about COVID-19 and telemedicine can be found on the Center for Connected Health Policy website. An interactive map of laws and reimbursement policies also is available on the websites of the American Telehealth Association and the American Academy of Dermatology. The ability to charge a patient directly for telehealth services depends on the insurance provider agreement. If telehealth is a covered service, you cannot charge these patients out-of-pocket.

Teledermatology Options

For many conditions, the effectiveness and quality of teledermatology is comparable to a conventional face-to-face visit.¹¹ There are 3 types of telehealth visits:

• Store and forward: The clinician reviews images or videos and responds asynchronously,¹² similar to an email chain.
• Live interactive: The clinician uses 2-way video synchronously.¹² In states with parity laws, this method is reimbursed equally to an in-person visit.
• Remote patient monitoring: Health-related data are collected and transmitted to a remote clinician, similar to remote intensive care unit management.¹² Dermatologists are unlikely to utilize this modality.

The Virtual Visit

Follow these guidelines for practicing teledermatology: (1) ensure that the image or video is clear and that there is proper lighting, a monochromatic background, and a clear view of the anatomy necessary to evaluate; (2) dress in appropriate attire as if you were in clinic, such as scrubs, a white coat, or other professional attire; (3) begin the telehealth encounter by obtaining informed consent,¹³ according to state¹⁴ or Medicare guidelines; (4) document the location of the patient and provider; (5) for live virtual visits, document similarly to an in-person visit⁵; (6) for all other virtual care, document minutes spent on each task; and (7) select only 1 billing code per visit.

In some states, regulations for commercial and/or Medicaid plans require that other modifiers be added to billing codes, which vary plan-by-plan:

• Modifier GQ: For asynchronous care (store and forward).
• Modifier GT: For synchronous live telehealth visits.
• Modifier -95: In states where there are equal parity laws or if you are billing a commercial insurance payer (may vary by plan).

Medicare does not require any additional modifiers.¹⁵ If the plan reimburses telemedicine equally to a face-to-face visit, use regular office visit codes. The eTable¹⁶ lists billing codes and Medicare reimbursement rates.

Secure Software

Several electronic medical record systems already include secure patient communication. Other HIPAA-compliant communication options with a variety of features are available to clinicians:

• Klara allows for HIPAA-secure texting, group messaging, photograph uploads, and telephone calls.
• Doximity offers free calling and faxes.
• G Suite for health care offers HIPAA-compliant texting, emailing, and video calls through Google Voice and Google Hangouts Meet.
• Secure video chat is available on Zoom for Healthcare, VSee, Doxy.me, and other platforms.
• Multiservice platforms such as DermEngine include billing, payments, teledermatology, and teledermoscopy and allow for interprofessional consultation.

The Bottom Line

Telehealth readiness is playing a key role in containing the spread of COVID-19. In-person dermatology visits are now being limited to urgent conditions only, as per institutional guidelines.⁴



Acknowledgment
We thank Garfunkel Wild, P.C. (Great Neck, New York), for their expertise and assistance.

The growing threat of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), now commonly known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has forced Americans to stay home due to quarantine, especially older individuals and those who are immunocompromised or have an underlying health problem such as pulmonary or cardiac disease. The federal government’s estimated $2 trillion CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act)¹ will provide a much-needed boost to health care and the economy; prior recent legislation approved an $8.6 billion emergency relief bill,² HR 6074 (Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020), which expands Medicare coverage of telehealth to patients in their home rather than having them travel to a designated site, covers both established and new patients, allows physicians to waive or reduce co-payments and cost-sharing requirements, and reimburses the same as an in-person visit.

Federal emergency legislation temporarily relaxed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),^3,4 allowing physicians to use Facetime and Skype for Medicare patients. In addition, Medicare will reimburse telehealth services for out-of-state-providers; however, cross-state licensure is governed by the patient’s home state.⁵ As of March 25, 2020, emergency legislation to temporarily allow out-of-state physicians to provide care, whether or not it relates to COVID-19, was enacted in 13 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and North Dakota.⁶ Ongoing legislation is rapidly changing; for daily updates on licensing laws, refer to the Federation of State Medical Boards website. Check your own institutional policies and malpractice provider prior to offering telehealth, as local laws and regulations may vary. Herein, we offer suggestions for using teledermatology.

Reimbursement

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia—had true payment parity laws,⁷ which reimbursed telehealth as a regular office visit using modifier -95. Several states have enacted emergency telehealth expansion laws to discourage COVID-19 spread⁸; some states such as New Jersey now prohibit co-payments or out-of-pocket deductibles from all in-network insurance plans (commercial Medicare and Medicaid).^9,10 Updated legislation about COVID-19 and telemedicine can be found on the Center for Connected Health Policy website. An interactive map of laws and reimbursement policies also is available on the websites of the American Telehealth Association and the American Academy of Dermatology. The ability to charge a patient directly for telehealth services depends on the insurance provider agreement. If telehealth is a covered service, you cannot charge these patients out-of-pocket.

Teledermatology Options

For many conditions, the effectiveness and quality of teledermatology is comparable to a conventional face-to-face visit.¹¹ There are 3 types of telehealth visits:

• Store and forward: The clinician reviews images or videos and responds asynchronously,¹² similar to an email chain.
• Live interactive: The clinician uses 2-way video synchronously.¹² In states with parity laws, this method is reimbursed equally to an in-person visit.
• Remote patient monitoring: Health-related data are collected and transmitted to a remote clinician, similar to remote intensive care unit management.¹² Dermatologists are unlikely to utilize this modality.

The Virtual Visit

Follow these guidelines for practicing teledermatology: (1) ensure that the image or video is clear and that there is proper lighting, a monochromatic background, and a clear view of the anatomy necessary to evaluate; (2) dress in appropriate attire as if you were in clinic, such as scrubs, a white coat, or other professional attire; (3) begin the telehealth encounter by obtaining informed consent,¹³ according to state¹⁴ or Medicare guidelines; (4) document the location of the patient and provider; (5) for live virtual visits, document similarly to an in-person visit⁵; (6) for all other virtual care, document minutes spent on each task; and (7) select only 1 billing code per visit.

In some states, regulations for commercial and/or Medicaid plans require that other modifiers be added to billing codes, which vary plan-by-plan:

• Modifier GQ: For asynchronous care (store and forward).
• Modifier GT: For synchronous live telehealth visits.
• Modifier -95: In states where there are equal parity laws or if you are billing a commercial insurance payer (may vary by plan).

Medicare does not require any additional modifiers.¹⁵ If the plan reimburses telemedicine equally to a face-to-face visit, use regular office visit codes. The eTable¹⁶ lists billing codes and Medicare reimbursement rates.

Secure Software

Several electronic medical record systems already include secure patient communication. Other HIPAA-compliant communication options with a variety of features are available to clinicians:

• Klara allows for HIPAA-secure texting, group messaging, photograph uploads, and telephone calls.
• Doximity offers free calling and faxes.
• G Suite for health care offers HIPAA-compliant texting, emailing, and video calls through Google Voice and Google Hangouts Meet.
• Secure video chat is available on Zoom for Healthcare, VSee, Doxy.me, and other platforms.
• Multiservice platforms such as DermEngine include billing, payments, teledermatology, and teledermoscopy and allow for interprofessional consultation.

The Bottom Line

Telehealth readiness is playing a key role in containing the spread of COVID-19. In-person dermatology visits are now being limited to urgent conditions only, as per institutional guidelines.⁴



Acknowledgment
We thank Garfunkel Wild, P.C. (Great Neck, New York), for their expertise and assistance.

The growing threat of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), now commonly known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has forced Americans to stay home due to quarantine, especially older individuals and those who are immunocompromised or have an underlying health problem such as pulmonary or cardiac disease. The federal government’s estimated $2 trillion CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act)¹ will provide a much-needed boost to health care and the economy; prior recent legislation approved an $8.6 billion emergency relief bill,² HR 6074 (Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020), which expands Medicare coverage of telehealth to patients in their home rather than having them travel to a designated site, covers both established and new patients, allows physicians to waive or reduce co-payments and cost-sharing requirements, and reimburses the same as an in-person visit.

Federal emergency legislation temporarily relaxed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),^3,4 allowing physicians to use Facetime and Skype for Medicare patients. In addition, Medicare will reimburse telehealth services for out-of-state-providers; however, cross-state licensure is governed by the patient’s home state.⁵ As of March 25, 2020, emergency legislation to temporarily allow out-of-state physicians to provide care, whether or not it relates to COVID-19, was enacted in 13 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and North Dakota.⁶ Ongoing legislation is rapidly changing; for daily updates on licensing laws, refer to the Federation of State Medical Boards website. Check your own institutional policies and malpractice provider prior to offering telehealth, as local laws and regulations may vary. Herein, we offer suggestions for using teledermatology.

Reimbursement

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia—had true payment parity laws,⁷ which reimbursed telehealth as a regular office visit using modifier -95. Several states have enacted emergency telehealth expansion laws to discourage COVID-19 spread⁸; some states such as New Jersey now prohibit co-payments or out-of-pocket deductibles from all in-network insurance plans (commercial Medicare and Medicaid).^9,10 Updated legislation about COVID-19 and telemedicine can be found on the Center for Connected Health Policy website. An interactive map of laws and reimbursement policies also is available on the websites of the American Telehealth Association and the American Academy of Dermatology. The ability to charge a patient directly for telehealth services depends on the insurance provider agreement. If telehealth is a covered service, you cannot charge these patients out-of-pocket.

Teledermatology Options

For many conditions, the effectiveness and quality of teledermatology is comparable to a conventional face-to-face visit.¹¹ There are 3 types of telehealth visits:

• Store and forward: The clinician reviews images or videos and responds asynchronously,¹² similar to an email chain.
• Live interactive: The clinician uses 2-way video synchronously.¹² In states with parity laws, this method is reimbursed equally to an in-person visit.
• Remote patient monitoring: Health-related data are collected and transmitted to a remote clinician, similar to remote intensive care unit management.¹² Dermatologists are unlikely to utilize this modality.

The Virtual Visit

Follow these guidelines for practicing teledermatology: (1) ensure that the image or video is clear and that there is proper lighting, a monochromatic background, and a clear view of the anatomy necessary to evaluate; (2) dress in appropriate attire as if you were in clinic, such as scrubs, a white coat, or other professional attire; (3) begin the telehealth encounter by obtaining informed consent,¹³ according to state¹⁴ or Medicare guidelines; (4) document the location of the patient and provider; (5) for live virtual visits, document similarly to an in-person visit⁵; (6) for all other virtual care, document minutes spent on each task; and (7) select only 1 billing code per visit.

In some states, regulations for commercial and/or Medicaid plans require that other modifiers be added to billing codes, which vary plan-by-plan:

• Modifier GQ: For asynchronous care (store and forward).
• Modifier GT: For synchronous live telehealth visits.
• Modifier -95: In states where there are equal parity laws or if you are billing a commercial insurance payer (may vary by plan).

Medicare does not require any additional modifiers.¹⁵ If the plan reimburses telemedicine equally to a face-to-face visit, use regular office visit codes. The eTable¹⁶ lists billing codes and Medicare reimbursement rates.

Secure Software

Several electronic medical record systems already include secure patient communication. Other HIPAA-compliant communication options with a variety of features are available to clinicians:

• Klara allows for HIPAA-secure texting, group messaging, photograph uploads, and telephone calls.
• Doximity offers free calling and faxes.
• G Suite for health care offers HIPAA-compliant texting, emailing, and video calls through Google Voice and Google Hangouts Meet.
• Secure video chat is available on Zoom for Healthcare, VSee, Doxy.me, and other platforms.
• Multiservice platforms such as DermEngine include billing, payments, teledermatology, and teledermoscopy and allow for interprofessional consultation.

The Bottom Line

Telehealth readiness is playing a key role in containing the spread of COVID-19. In-person dermatology visits are now being limited to urgent conditions only, as per institutional guidelines.⁴



Acknowledgment
We thank Garfunkel Wild, P.C. (Great Neck, New York), for their expertise and assistance.

The Diagnosis: Apocrine Hidrocystoma 

Histopathologic examination of one of the papules revealed cystic cavities located within the dermis (Figure 1) lined by a cuboidal epithelium demonstrating decapitation secretion (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of apocrine hidrocystomas. The presence of multiple lesions prompted further examination for an underlying genetic disorder; however, the patient's hair, nails, and teeth were normal. There also was no evidence of palmoplantar keratoderma or blaschkoid dermatosis. 

Hidrocystomas are benign cysts of the sudoriferous apparatus that can be subdivided based on histogenesis (apocrine vs eccrine) or lesion count (single vs multiple).¹ Multiple lesions may be associated with disorders of ectodermal dysplasia, including Goltz syndrome and Schopf-Schulz-Passarge syndrome. Apocrine hidrocystomas tend to present as solitary, translucent, flesh-colored to bluish facial papules, and the occurrence of multiple lesions is rare in contrast to its eccrine counterpart.² Various extrafacial sites have been described including the trunk, axillae, umbilicus, genitalia, and digits.³ Apocrine hidrocystomas do not demonstrate aggravation with exposure to heat, unlike their eccrine counterparts.² 

A review of 107 patients with 215 histologically proven hidrocystomas demonstrated a preponderance for women in their mid 50s; 74.8% of patients had unilateral disease, and 69.8% of all lesions affected either the lower eyelid or lateral canthus. Recurrence following conventional surgical excision was observed in 2.3% of lesions.¹ 

A review from Japan recounted an incidence of 5 cases per year from 1999 to 2003.⁴ Patients ranged in age from 30 to 70 years, but there was no gender predilection. Individual apocrine hidrocystomas were mostly less than 2 cm and varied from flesh colored to light red, brown, blue, or purple; 61% of lesions arose periorbitally. Within their cohort, patients with multiple lesions were uncommon, with only 2 cases presenting with 2 lesions simultaneously.⁴  

Apocrine hidrocystomas are thought to result from a cystic proliferation of the secretory component of apocrine sweat glands, though the exact pathogenesis still is unclear.³ Histologic features include a unilocular or multilocular cystic cavity within the dermis lined by columnar cells demonstrating decapitation secretion, followed by a peripheral rim of flattened myoepithelial cells. 

Treatment of apocrine hidrocystomas includes topical anticholinergics, surgical excision, electrodesiccation, 1450-nm diode or CO² lasers, and trichloroacetic acid.² The novel use of cryotherapy,⁵ botulinum toxin,² and intralesional injections of 50% glucose (as a sclerosant)⁶ also have been reported. Caution should be exercised when managing digital lesions, as digital papillary carcinoma has been described as a clinical and histopathologic mimicker.⁷ 

Lipoid proteinosis is a rare autosomal-recessive disorder. Cutaneous lesions manifest in 2 overlapping stages, typically within the first 2 years of life. The first stage consists of vesicles and hemorrhagic crusts on the face and extremities and intraorally, which may heal with scarring. In the second stage, the skin becomes diffusely thickened and waxy, with the appearance of papules, nodules, or plaques along the eyelid margins (moniliform blepharosis), face, axillae, or scrotum. Verrucous lesions also may develop on the knee or elbow extensors.⁸  

Lymphangioma circumscriptum represents microcystic lymphatic malformations that can arise anywhere on the skin or oral mucosa. They present as clusters of clear or hemorrhagic vesicles of variable size and number favoring the proximal extremities and chest. Histologically, dilated lymphatic channels are seen in the upper dermis.⁸  

Syringomas are common benign tumors of the sweat ducts characterized histologically by superficial dermal proliferations of small comma-shaped ducts set in a fibrotic stroma. Clinically, syringomas appear as small, firm, flesh-colored papules with a predilection for the periorbital area. An eruptive onset may be observed, most commonly affecting the trunk. Syringomas may be associated with Down syndrome, while the clear cell variant may be associated with diabetes mellitus.⁸    

Primary systemic amyloidosis may present with a variety of systemic manifestations. Skin involvement can present as waxy, translucent, or purpuric papulonodules or plaques characteristically affecting the periorbital region. Other mucocutaneous signs include macroglossia with or without translucent to hemorrhagic papulovesicles; bruising, especially on the eyelids, neck, axillae, or anogenital area; vesiculobullous skin lesions; or diffuse cutaneous infiltration imparting a sclerodermoid appearance.⁸

The Diagnosis: Apocrine Hidrocystoma 

Histopathologic examination of one of the papules revealed cystic cavities located within the dermis (Figure 1) lined by a cuboidal epithelium demonstrating decapitation secretion (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of apocrine hidrocystomas. The presence of multiple lesions prompted further examination for an underlying genetic disorder; however, the patient's hair, nails, and teeth were normal. There also was no evidence of palmoplantar keratoderma or blaschkoid dermatosis. 

Hidrocystomas are benign cysts of the sudoriferous apparatus that can be subdivided based on histogenesis (apocrine vs eccrine) or lesion count (single vs multiple).¹ Multiple lesions may be associated with disorders of ectodermal dysplasia, including Goltz syndrome and Schopf-Schulz-Passarge syndrome. Apocrine hidrocystomas tend to present as solitary, translucent, flesh-colored to bluish facial papules, and the occurrence of multiple lesions is rare in contrast to its eccrine counterpart.² Various extrafacial sites have been described including the trunk, axillae, umbilicus, genitalia, and digits.³ Apocrine hidrocystomas do not demonstrate aggravation with exposure to heat, unlike their eccrine counterparts.² 

A review of 107 patients with 215 histologically proven hidrocystomas demonstrated a preponderance for women in their mid 50s; 74.8% of patients had unilateral disease, and 69.8% of all lesions affected either the lower eyelid or lateral canthus. Recurrence following conventional surgical excision was observed in 2.3% of lesions.¹ 

A review from Japan recounted an incidence of 5 cases per year from 1999 to 2003.⁴ Patients ranged in age from 30 to 70 years, but there was no gender predilection. Individual apocrine hidrocystomas were mostly less than 2 cm and varied from flesh colored to light red, brown, blue, or purple; 61% of lesions arose periorbitally. Within their cohort, patients with multiple lesions were uncommon, with only 2 cases presenting with 2 lesions simultaneously.⁴  

Apocrine hidrocystomas are thought to result from a cystic proliferation of the secretory component of apocrine sweat glands, though the exact pathogenesis still is unclear.³ Histologic features include a unilocular or multilocular cystic cavity within the dermis lined by columnar cells demonstrating decapitation secretion, followed by a peripheral rim of flattened myoepithelial cells. 

Treatment of apocrine hidrocystomas includes topical anticholinergics, surgical excision, electrodesiccation, 1450-nm diode or CO² lasers, and trichloroacetic acid.² The novel use of cryotherapy,⁵ botulinum toxin,² and intralesional injections of 50% glucose (as a sclerosant)⁶ also have been reported. Caution should be exercised when managing digital lesions, as digital papillary carcinoma has been described as a clinical and histopathologic mimicker.⁷ 

Lipoid proteinosis is a rare autosomal-recessive disorder. Cutaneous lesions manifest in 2 overlapping stages, typically within the first 2 years of life. The first stage consists of vesicles and hemorrhagic crusts on the face and extremities and intraorally, which may heal with scarring. In the second stage, the skin becomes diffusely thickened and waxy, with the appearance of papules, nodules, or plaques along the eyelid margins (moniliform blepharosis), face, axillae, or scrotum. Verrucous lesions also may develop on the knee or elbow extensors.⁸  

Lymphangioma circumscriptum represents microcystic lymphatic malformations that can arise anywhere on the skin or oral mucosa. They present as clusters of clear or hemorrhagic vesicles of variable size and number favoring the proximal extremities and chest. Histologically, dilated lymphatic channels are seen in the upper dermis.⁸  

Syringomas are common benign tumors of the sweat ducts characterized histologically by superficial dermal proliferations of small comma-shaped ducts set in a fibrotic stroma. Clinically, syringomas appear as small, firm, flesh-colored papules with a predilection for the periorbital area. An eruptive onset may be observed, most commonly affecting the trunk. Syringomas may be associated with Down syndrome, while the clear cell variant may be associated with diabetes mellitus.⁸    

Primary systemic amyloidosis may present with a variety of systemic manifestations. Skin involvement can present as waxy, translucent, or purpuric papulonodules or plaques characteristically affecting the periorbital region. Other mucocutaneous signs include macroglossia with or without translucent to hemorrhagic papulovesicles; bruising, especially on the eyelids, neck, axillae, or anogenital area; vesiculobullous skin lesions; or diffuse cutaneous infiltration imparting a sclerodermoid appearance.⁸

The Diagnosis: Apocrine Hidrocystoma 

Histopathologic examination of one of the papules revealed cystic cavities located within the dermis (Figure 1) lined by a cuboidal epithelium demonstrating decapitation secretion (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of apocrine hidrocystomas. The presence of multiple lesions prompted further examination for an underlying genetic disorder; however, the patient's hair, nails, and teeth were normal. There also was no evidence of palmoplantar keratoderma or blaschkoid dermatosis. 

Hidrocystomas are benign cysts of the sudoriferous apparatus that can be subdivided based on histogenesis (apocrine vs eccrine) or lesion count (single vs multiple).¹ Multiple lesions may be associated with disorders of ectodermal dysplasia, including Goltz syndrome and Schopf-Schulz-Passarge syndrome. Apocrine hidrocystomas tend to present as solitary, translucent, flesh-colored to bluish facial papules, and the occurrence of multiple lesions is rare in contrast to its eccrine counterpart.² Various extrafacial sites have been described including the trunk, axillae, umbilicus, genitalia, and digits.³ Apocrine hidrocystomas do not demonstrate aggravation with exposure to heat, unlike their eccrine counterparts.² 

A review of 107 patients with 215 histologically proven hidrocystomas demonstrated a preponderance for women in their mid 50s; 74.8% of patients had unilateral disease, and 69.8% of all lesions affected either the lower eyelid or lateral canthus. Recurrence following conventional surgical excision was observed in 2.3% of lesions.¹ 

A review from Japan recounted an incidence of 5 cases per year from 1999 to 2003.⁴ Patients ranged in age from 30 to 70 years, but there was no gender predilection. Individual apocrine hidrocystomas were mostly less than 2 cm and varied from flesh colored to light red, brown, blue, or purple; 61% of lesions arose periorbitally. Within their cohort, patients with multiple lesions were uncommon, with only 2 cases presenting with 2 lesions simultaneously.⁴  

Apocrine hidrocystomas are thought to result from a cystic proliferation of the secretory component of apocrine sweat glands, though the exact pathogenesis still is unclear.³ Histologic features include a unilocular or multilocular cystic cavity within the dermis lined by columnar cells demonstrating decapitation secretion, followed by a peripheral rim of flattened myoepithelial cells. 

Treatment of apocrine hidrocystomas includes topical anticholinergics, surgical excision, electrodesiccation, 1450-nm diode or CO² lasers, and trichloroacetic acid.² The novel use of cryotherapy,⁵ botulinum toxin,² and intralesional injections of 50% glucose (as a sclerosant)⁶ also have been reported. Caution should be exercised when managing digital lesions, as digital papillary carcinoma has been described as a clinical and histopathologic mimicker.⁷ 

Lipoid proteinosis is a rare autosomal-recessive disorder. Cutaneous lesions manifest in 2 overlapping stages, typically within the first 2 years of life. The first stage consists of vesicles and hemorrhagic crusts on the face and extremities and intraorally, which may heal with scarring. In the second stage, the skin becomes diffusely thickened and waxy, with the appearance of papules, nodules, or plaques along the eyelid margins (moniliform blepharosis), face, axillae, or scrotum. Verrucous lesions also may develop on the knee or elbow extensors.⁸  

Lymphangioma circumscriptum represents microcystic lymphatic malformations that can arise anywhere on the skin or oral mucosa. They present as clusters of clear or hemorrhagic vesicles of variable size and number favoring the proximal extremities and chest. Histologically, dilated lymphatic channels are seen in the upper dermis.⁸  

Syringomas are common benign tumors of the sweat ducts characterized histologically by superficial dermal proliferations of small comma-shaped ducts set in a fibrotic stroma. Clinically, syringomas appear as small, firm, flesh-colored papules with a predilection for the periorbital area. An eruptive onset may be observed, most commonly affecting the trunk. Syringomas may be associated with Down syndrome, while the clear cell variant may be associated with diabetes mellitus.⁸    

Primary systemic amyloidosis may present with a variety of systemic manifestations. Skin involvement can present as waxy, translucent, or purpuric papulonodules or plaques characteristically affecting the periorbital region. Other mucocutaneous signs include macroglossia with or without translucent to hemorrhagic papulovesicles; bruising, especially on the eyelids, neck, axillae, or anogenital area; vesiculobullous skin lesions; or diffuse cutaneous infiltration imparting a sclerodermoid appearance.⁸

Clinicians from Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, have reported the first presumptive case of acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy associated with COVID-19.

“As the number of patients with COVID-19 increases worldwide, clinicians and radiologists should be watching for this presentation among patients presenting with COVID-19 and altered mental status,” the clinicians advise in a report published online March 31 in Radiology.

“This is significant for all providers to be aware of and looking out for in [COVID-19] patients who present with an altered level of consciousness. This complication is as devastating as severe lung disease,” Elissa Fory, MD, a neurologist with Henry Ford who was part of the team of medical experts that made the diagnosis, said in a statement.

“We need to be thinking of how we’re going to incorporate patients with severe neurological disease into our treatment paradigm,” Fory added.

Brent Griffith, MD, radiologist with Henry Ford and senior author of the case report, said the case shows “the important role that imaging can play in COVID-19 cases.”

Diagnosed via neuroimaging

The 58-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of fever, cough, and muscle aches ― symptoms consistent with COVID-19. She was transported by ambulance to the emergency department and showed signs of confusion, lethargy, and disorientation.

The woman tested negative for influenza, but a rapid COVID-19 test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. She was later diagnosed with acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.

“The team had suspected encephalitis at the outset, but then back-to-back CT and MRI scans made the diagnosis,” Fory said in the statement.

Noncontrast head CT revealed “symmetric hypoattenuation within the bilateral medial thalami with a normal CT angiogram and CT venogram,” the team reports in their article. Brain MRI showed “hemorrhagic rim enhancing lesions within the bilateral thalami, medial temporal lobes, and subinsular regions.”

The patient was started on intravenous immunoglobulin but not high-dose steroids, because of concern for respiratory compromise. As of April 1, the patient was hospitalized in serious condition. Henry Ford Hospital has not provided an update.

Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare complication of viral infections, but until now, it has not been known to have occurred as a result of COVID-19 infection. ANE has been associated with intracranial “cytokine storms,” and a recent report in the Lancet suggested that a subgroup of patients with severe COVID-19 might develop a cytokine storm syndrome.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “Since this is just one report of one patient, the findings are the most preliminary we can conceive, and more research is needed to determine the extent to which COVID-19 may affect the central nervous system.”

Fory, Griffith, and Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.






 

Clinicians from Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, have reported the first presumptive case of acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy associated with COVID-19.

“As the number of patients with COVID-19 increases worldwide, clinicians and radiologists should be watching for this presentation among patients presenting with COVID-19 and altered mental status,” the clinicians advise in a report published online March 31 in Radiology.

“This is significant for all providers to be aware of and looking out for in [COVID-19] patients who present with an altered level of consciousness. This complication is as devastating as severe lung disease,” Elissa Fory, MD, a neurologist with Henry Ford who was part of the team of medical experts that made the diagnosis, said in a statement.

“We need to be thinking of how we’re going to incorporate patients with severe neurological disease into our treatment paradigm,” Fory added.

Brent Griffith, MD, radiologist with Henry Ford and senior author of the case report, said the case shows “the important role that imaging can play in COVID-19 cases.”

Diagnosed via neuroimaging

The 58-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of fever, cough, and muscle aches ― symptoms consistent with COVID-19. She was transported by ambulance to the emergency department and showed signs of confusion, lethargy, and disorientation.

The woman tested negative for influenza, but a rapid COVID-19 test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. She was later diagnosed with acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.

“The team had suspected encephalitis at the outset, but then back-to-back CT and MRI scans made the diagnosis,” Fory said in the statement.

Noncontrast head CT revealed “symmetric hypoattenuation within the bilateral medial thalami with a normal CT angiogram and CT venogram,” the team reports in their article. Brain MRI showed “hemorrhagic rim enhancing lesions within the bilateral thalami, medial temporal lobes, and subinsular regions.”

The patient was started on intravenous immunoglobulin but not high-dose steroids, because of concern for respiratory compromise. As of April 1, the patient was hospitalized in serious condition. Henry Ford Hospital has not provided an update.

Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare complication of viral infections, but until now, it has not been known to have occurred as a result of COVID-19 infection. ANE has been associated with intracranial “cytokine storms,” and a recent report in the Lancet suggested that a subgroup of patients with severe COVID-19 might develop a cytokine storm syndrome.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “Since this is just one report of one patient, the findings are the most preliminary we can conceive, and more research is needed to determine the extent to which COVID-19 may affect the central nervous system.”

Fory, Griffith, and Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.






 

Clinicians from Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, have reported the first presumptive case of acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy associated with COVID-19.

“As the number of patients with COVID-19 increases worldwide, clinicians and radiologists should be watching for this presentation among patients presenting with COVID-19 and altered mental status,” the clinicians advise in a report published online March 31 in Radiology.

“This is significant for all providers to be aware of and looking out for in [COVID-19] patients who present with an altered level of consciousness. This complication is as devastating as severe lung disease,” Elissa Fory, MD, a neurologist with Henry Ford who was part of the team of medical experts that made the diagnosis, said in a statement.

“We need to be thinking of how we’re going to incorporate patients with severe neurological disease into our treatment paradigm,” Fory added.

Brent Griffith, MD, radiologist with Henry Ford and senior author of the case report, said the case shows “the important role that imaging can play in COVID-19 cases.”

Diagnosed via neuroimaging

The 58-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of fever, cough, and muscle aches ― symptoms consistent with COVID-19. She was transported by ambulance to the emergency department and showed signs of confusion, lethargy, and disorientation.

The woman tested negative for influenza, but a rapid COVID-19 test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. She was later diagnosed with acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.

“The team had suspected encephalitis at the outset, but then back-to-back CT and MRI scans made the diagnosis,” Fory said in the statement.

Noncontrast head CT revealed “symmetric hypoattenuation within the bilateral medial thalami with a normal CT angiogram and CT venogram,” the team reports in their article. Brain MRI showed “hemorrhagic rim enhancing lesions within the bilateral thalami, medial temporal lobes, and subinsular regions.”

The patient was started on intravenous immunoglobulin but not high-dose steroids, because of concern for respiratory compromise. As of April 1, the patient was hospitalized in serious condition. Henry Ford Hospital has not provided an update.

Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare complication of viral infections, but until now, it has not been known to have occurred as a result of COVID-19 infection. ANE has been associated with intracranial “cytokine storms,” and a recent report in the Lancet suggested that a subgroup of patients with severe COVID-19 might develop a cytokine storm syndrome.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “Since this is just one report of one patient, the findings are the most preliminary we can conceive, and more research is needed to determine the extent to which COVID-19 may affect the central nervous system.”

Fory, Griffith, and Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.






 

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads over the country, nearly half (48%) of US healthcare facilities — of various types and sizes — are already or almost out of respirators for treating patients, according to the results of a national online survey of infection prevention professionals.

Conducted during March 23-25 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the survey asked APIC’s 11,922 US-based infection preventionist members to rank their facilities’ supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and key items, such as hand sanitizer and cleaning products, on a 5-point scale from having “plenty” to “none.”

Overall, 1,140 (9.6%) infection preventionists responded. Almost 70% of respondents represented a healthcare system rather than a single facility, and facilities ranged from hospitals (42.7%) to ambulatory care (17.4%) and dialysis (2.7%). The centers, from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., ranged in size from those with 1 to 50 beds to those with more than 300 beds.

Of the respondents, 233 (20.4%) reported their facilities have no protective respirators and 317 (27.8%) said they were almost out of the devices, which are needed to protect healthcare workers managing patients with COVID-19 and different infectious diseases.

The survey was posted Friday on the APIC website.

Other findings from the survey include:

• Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) said their centers lack sufficient enough face shields, with 36.5% reporting being almost out and 12.6% reporting being completely out.
• Approximately one third (31.7%) of respondents reported being completely or nearly out of face masks.
• Even simple hand sanitizer is in short supply at more than 1 in 4 facilities surveyed; 25.6% of respondents said they are almost out and 2.6% are completely out.
• Nearly 30% of respondents reported accessing supplemental PPE through state or local resources, while 24.6% said they accepted private donations of supplies.
• Fewer than one-third (31.5%) said they had sufficient gowns.
• About 28% said they were almost out of protective respirators, while 20.5% said they have none.
• Only 12.3% said they have received supplies from federal resources, including the Strategic National Stockpile, which is controlled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
• 17.2% of respondents reported resorting to DIY measures such as sewing their own masks.

In terms of staffing resources, 67% of respondents said their center has only one (or fewer) full-time–equivalent infection preventionist on staff to develop protocols for managing COVID-19. That is not surprising given the general underresourcing of infection control programs, the survey compilers said.

“Hospitals and health facilities with fewer than one full-time person on staff to direct infection prevention activities may have been disadvantaged even before the COVID-19 pandemic,” said APIC president Connie Steed, MSN, RN, in a related news release.

On a more positive note, about two thirds of facilities said they have sufficient supplies of gloves (63.4%) and hand washing soap (67.1%).

“I am concerned that many facilities will not be able to protect healthcare workers and patients from not only COVID-19, but also MRSA, C diff., and other antibiotic-resistant infections,” Steed said.

At some centers, however, the situation is not so grim — yet. The large Harris Health System in Houston has enough PPE on hand to support all infection prevention protocols in place, according to Bryan McLeod, director of corporate communications. “The PPE inventory varies from a few weeks to well over a month depending on the specific item,” McLeod told Medscape Medical News. “But everything is dependent on the utilization rate, which can vary with patient volume. Our concern is long-term resupply while demand is peaking around the world, and we continue to pursue all avenues to secure resupply.”

Above all, Steed emphasizes healthcare workers’ need for clarity. “They need to know when exactly they can expect desperately needed supplies to arrive so they don’t have to turn to unproven crisis methods for PPE,” she said. “There have been grim reports from health officials about the supply shortage for weeks and we’re not getting any answers. This is unacceptable.”

APIC is urging the federal government for immediate activation of the Cold War–era Defense Production Act and any other available means to quickly manufacture vital supplies to protect healthcare workers treating the escalating numbers of COVID-19 patients.

In the meantime, frontline healthcare workers are scouring the Internet for suppliers and begging online for donations of masks.

APIC notes that the COVID-19 pandemic is compounded by this year’s particularly severe influenza season, which had already led overcrowded healthcare facilities.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads over the country, nearly half (48%) of US healthcare facilities — of various types and sizes — are already or almost out of respirators for treating patients, according to the results of a national online survey of infection prevention professionals.

Conducted during March 23-25 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the survey asked APIC’s 11,922 US-based infection preventionist members to rank their facilities’ supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and key items, such as hand sanitizer and cleaning products, on a 5-point scale from having “plenty” to “none.”

Overall, 1,140 (9.6%) infection preventionists responded. Almost 70% of respondents represented a healthcare system rather than a single facility, and facilities ranged from hospitals (42.7%) to ambulatory care (17.4%) and dialysis (2.7%). The centers, from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., ranged in size from those with 1 to 50 beds to those with more than 300 beds.

Of the respondents, 233 (20.4%) reported their facilities have no protective respirators and 317 (27.8%) said they were almost out of the devices, which are needed to protect healthcare workers managing patients with COVID-19 and different infectious diseases.

The survey was posted Friday on the APIC website.

Other findings from the survey include:

• Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) said their centers lack sufficient enough face shields, with 36.5% reporting being almost out and 12.6% reporting being completely out.
• Approximately one third (31.7%) of respondents reported being completely or nearly out of face masks.
• Even simple hand sanitizer is in short supply at more than 1 in 4 facilities surveyed; 25.6% of respondents said they are almost out and 2.6% are completely out.
• Nearly 30% of respondents reported accessing supplemental PPE through state or local resources, while 24.6% said they accepted private donations of supplies.
• Fewer than one-third (31.5%) said they had sufficient gowns.
• About 28% said they were almost out of protective respirators, while 20.5% said they have none.
• Only 12.3% said they have received supplies from federal resources, including the Strategic National Stockpile, which is controlled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
• 17.2% of respondents reported resorting to DIY measures such as sewing their own masks.

In terms of staffing resources, 67% of respondents said their center has only one (or fewer) full-time–equivalent infection preventionist on staff to develop protocols for managing COVID-19. That is not surprising given the general underresourcing of infection control programs, the survey compilers said.

“Hospitals and health facilities with fewer than one full-time person on staff to direct infection prevention activities may have been disadvantaged even before the COVID-19 pandemic,” said APIC president Connie Steed, MSN, RN, in a related news release.

On a more positive note, about two thirds of facilities said they have sufficient supplies of gloves (63.4%) and hand washing soap (67.1%).

“I am concerned that many facilities will not be able to protect healthcare workers and patients from not only COVID-19, but also MRSA, C diff., and other antibiotic-resistant infections,” Steed said.

At some centers, however, the situation is not so grim — yet. The large Harris Health System in Houston has enough PPE on hand to support all infection prevention protocols in place, according to Bryan McLeod, director of corporate communications. “The PPE inventory varies from a few weeks to well over a month depending on the specific item,” McLeod told Medscape Medical News. “But everything is dependent on the utilization rate, which can vary with patient volume. Our concern is long-term resupply while demand is peaking around the world, and we continue to pursue all avenues to secure resupply.”

Above all, Steed emphasizes healthcare workers’ need for clarity. “They need to know when exactly they can expect desperately needed supplies to arrive so they don’t have to turn to unproven crisis methods for PPE,” she said. “There have been grim reports from health officials about the supply shortage for weeks and we’re not getting any answers. This is unacceptable.”

APIC is urging the federal government for immediate activation of the Cold War–era Defense Production Act and any other available means to quickly manufacture vital supplies to protect healthcare workers treating the escalating numbers of COVID-19 patients.

In the meantime, frontline healthcare workers are scouring the Internet for suppliers and begging online for donations of masks.

APIC notes that the COVID-19 pandemic is compounded by this year’s particularly severe influenza season, which had already led overcrowded healthcare facilities.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads over the country, nearly half (48%) of US healthcare facilities — of various types and sizes — are already or almost out of respirators for treating patients, according to the results of a national online survey of infection prevention professionals.

Conducted during March 23-25 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the survey asked APIC’s 11,922 US-based infection preventionist members to rank their facilities’ supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and key items, such as hand sanitizer and cleaning products, on a 5-point scale from having “plenty” to “none.”

Overall, 1,140 (9.6%) infection preventionists responded. Almost 70% of respondents represented a healthcare system rather than a single facility, and facilities ranged from hospitals (42.7%) to ambulatory care (17.4%) and dialysis (2.7%). The centers, from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., ranged in size from those with 1 to 50 beds to those with more than 300 beds.

Of the respondents, 233 (20.4%) reported their facilities have no protective respirators and 317 (27.8%) said they were almost out of the devices, which are needed to protect healthcare workers managing patients with COVID-19 and different infectious diseases.

The survey was posted Friday on the APIC website.

Other findings from the survey include:

• Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) said their centers lack sufficient enough face shields, with 36.5% reporting being almost out and 12.6% reporting being completely out.
• Approximately one third (31.7%) of respondents reported being completely or nearly out of face masks.
• Even simple hand sanitizer is in short supply at more than 1 in 4 facilities surveyed; 25.6% of respondents said they are almost out and 2.6% are completely out.
• Nearly 30% of respondents reported accessing supplemental PPE through state or local resources, while 24.6% said they accepted private donations of supplies.
• Fewer than one-third (31.5%) said they had sufficient gowns.
• About 28% said they were almost out of protective respirators, while 20.5% said they have none.
• Only 12.3% said they have received supplies from federal resources, including the Strategic National Stockpile, which is controlled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
• 17.2% of respondents reported resorting to DIY measures such as sewing their own masks.

In terms of staffing resources, 67% of respondents said their center has only one (or fewer) full-time–equivalent infection preventionist on staff to develop protocols for managing COVID-19. That is not surprising given the general underresourcing of infection control programs, the survey compilers said.

“Hospitals and health facilities with fewer than one full-time person on staff to direct infection prevention activities may have been disadvantaged even before the COVID-19 pandemic,” said APIC president Connie Steed, MSN, RN, in a related news release.

On a more positive note, about two thirds of facilities said they have sufficient supplies of gloves (63.4%) and hand washing soap (67.1%).

“I am concerned that many facilities will not be able to protect healthcare workers and patients from not only COVID-19, but also MRSA, C diff., and other antibiotic-resistant infections,” Steed said.

At some centers, however, the situation is not so grim — yet. The large Harris Health System in Houston has enough PPE on hand to support all infection prevention protocols in place, according to Bryan McLeod, director of corporate communications. “The PPE inventory varies from a few weeks to well over a month depending on the specific item,” McLeod told Medscape Medical News. “But everything is dependent on the utilization rate, which can vary with patient volume. Our concern is long-term resupply while demand is peaking around the world, and we continue to pursue all avenues to secure resupply.”

Above all, Steed emphasizes healthcare workers’ need for clarity. “They need to know when exactly they can expect desperately needed supplies to arrive so they don’t have to turn to unproven crisis methods for PPE,” she said. “There have been grim reports from health officials about the supply shortage for weeks and we’re not getting any answers. This is unacceptable.”

APIC is urging the federal government for immediate activation of the Cold War–era Defense Production Act and any other available means to quickly manufacture vital supplies to protect healthcare workers treating the escalating numbers of COVID-19 patients.

In the meantime, frontline healthcare workers are scouring the Internet for suppliers and begging online for donations of masks.

APIC notes that the COVID-19 pandemic is compounded by this year’s particularly severe influenza season, which had already led overcrowded healthcare facilities.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The young gastroenterologist has no shortage of personal finance topics to juggle, ranging from investments, to life and disability coverage, and planning for retirement. But the elephant in the room is student loan management. Average medical student debt today is approximately $240,000, and debt burdens greater than $300,000 are becoming common.^1,2 With this staggering amount of debt, it is understandable why student loans are a major source of anxiety. Here, I will provide a brief introduction to student loan management for gastroenterologists.

Student loans: Basic strategy

It is important to distinguish between two major types of loans: private student loans and direct federal loans. With private student loans the best strategy in most cases is to refinance to a lower interest rate. For direct federal loans, however, the decision making is more complex. There are two major approaches to these federal loans – either 1) refinance, or 2) go for public service loan forgiveness (PSLF). See Figure 1 for a flowchart summarizing my general approach to student loan management.

Refinance basics

One potential approach is to refinance your federal loans. Most federal loans today are at a relatively high interest rate of 6%-8%.³ Private refinancing can yield rates in the 3%-5% range, depending on the type of loan and other factors. For a loan balance of $200,000, the savings by refinancing could be approximately $2,000-$10,000 per year in interest alone. However, refinancing your loans with a private company eliminates the possibility of PSLF. Hence, you should only refinance federal loans once you are sure that you will not be pursuing PSLF. You may refinance your private loans anytime since they do not qualify for PSLF. There are multiple companies that provide student loan refinancing. The process can be done online, sometimes in as little as 30 minutes. There is generally little or no cost to refinancing, and many companies even provide a small cash-back incentive to refinance.

PSLF basics

The PSLF program allows borrowers to have the remainder of their direct loans forgiven after 10 years (120 monthly payments) under a qualifying income-driven repayment (IDR) plan.⁴ Figure 2 shows an overview of the various IDR plans. During the 120 payments, the borrower must work full time for a qualifying employer, which includes a government employer or a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. Loan forgiveness with PSLF is completely tax free. Importantly, the PSLF program only applies to direct federal loans. You can see your federal loan types and balances by visiting https://studentaid.gov/.

To PSLF or not to PSLF?

With direct federal loans, the decision to refinance or go for PSLF is a major fork in the road. PSLF can be a good option for borrowers with long training programs and with high student loan burdens (e.g., loan-to-income ratios of 1:1, 2:1 or higher). By contrast, borrowers with short training programs or relatively small loan burdens may be better off refinancing to a low interest rate and paying off loans quickly. Virtually all institutions that train residents and fellows are qualified government or 501(c)(3) organizations. Hence, a gastroenterology graduate generally will have completed at least 6 out of 10 years of payments by the end of training. Trainees who did a chief resident year or gastroenterology research track may have completed 7 or 8 years of qualifying payments already.

For trainees who are already planning an academic career, PSLF is often a good option. While PSLF can be a nice benefit, I would not advise making a career decision purely based on PSLF. Private practice jobs generally come with substantially higher salaries than academic and government jobs. This salary differential typically more than compensates for the loss of access to PSLF. Hence, I advise trainees to choose the practice setting that is best for their personal and career satisfaction, and then build a student loan management plan around that. The exception may be the trainee who has a very large student loan burden (e.g., loan-to-income ratio of 2:1 or 3:1).

Caveats with PSLF

There have been well publicized concerns about the future of PSLF, including proposals to eliminate or cap the program.^5,6 However, most proposed legislation has only recommended changes to PSLF for new borrowers. If you currently have existing federal loans, you would very likely be grandfathered into the existing PSLF terms. All federal master promissory notes since 2007 have cited PSLF as a loan repayment option.⁷ Hence, eliminating PSLF for existing borrowers seems unlikely since it would be changing the terms of an executed contract.⁸

There have also been widespread reports of high numbers of borrowers being denied applications for PSLF.^9,10 However, the majority of these applicants did not have correct types of loans, had not worked full time for qualifying employers or had not made the full 120 payments.¹¹ Yet some denials have apparently resulted from errors in tracking qualifying payments by FedLoan servicing.¹² Therefore it would be prudent to keep your own careful records of all qualifying payments towards PSLF.

The nuclear option: 20- to 25-year IDR-based forgiveness

An additional option allows borrowers to make IDRs for 20-25 years (details in Figure 2) and then having their remaining loan balance forgiven.¹³ This option is completely independent of PSLF. Borrowers can work full time or part time and can work for any employer, including private employers.

One additional option: NIH loan repayment programs

One additional solution to consider are the NIH Loan Repayment Programs (LRPs). These programs can provide substantial loan repayment (up to $50,000 annually) for trainees and attendings engaged in research that aligns with NIH priorities, including clinical research or health disparities research.¹⁴ Notably, the applicant’s research does not have to be NIH sponsored research.

Getting more information

The approach above is a general overview of student loan concepts for gastroenterologists. However, there are countless nuances and tactics that are beyond the scope of this introductory article. I encourage everyone to get additional information and advice when making your own loan management plan. There are many helpful online resources, podcasts, and books discussing the topic. Several companies provide detailed consultation on managing student loans. Such services may cost a few hundred dollars but could potentially save tens of thousands of dollars on student loan costs.

Dr. Jain is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology & hepatology, department of medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill. Dr. Jain has no conflicts of interest and no funding source.

References

1. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_332.45.asp

2. https://www.credible.com/blog/statistics/average-medical-school-debt/

3. https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/interest-rates

4. https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service

5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2019/09/24/how-to-get-your-public-service-loan-forgiveness-qualifying-payments-recounted/#18567f061f5d

6. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2018/54721

7. https://static.studentloans.gov/images/ApplicationAndPromissoryNote.pdf

8. https://www.biglawinvestor.com/pslf-promissory-note/

9. https://bostonstudentloanlawyer.com/scary-stats-for-public-service-loan-forgiveness/

10. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-government-loan-forgiveness-program-has-rejected-99-of-borrowers-so-far-2018-09-20

11. https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/loan-forgiveness/pslf-data

12. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/your-money/public-service-loan-forgiveness.html

13. https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven

14. https://www.lrp.nih.gov/eligibility-programs

The young gastroenterologist has no shortage of personal finance topics to juggle, ranging from investments, to life and disability coverage, and planning for retirement. But the elephant in the room is student loan management. Average medical student debt today is approximately $240,000, and debt burdens greater than $300,000 are becoming common.^1,2 With this staggering amount of debt, it is understandable why student loans are a major source of anxiety. Here, I will provide a brief introduction to student loan management for gastroenterologists.

Student loans: Basic strategy

It is important to distinguish between two major types of loans: private student loans and direct federal loans. With private student loans the best strategy in most cases is to refinance to a lower interest rate. For direct federal loans, however, the decision making is more complex. There are two major approaches to these federal loans – either 1) refinance, or 2) go for public service loan forgiveness (PSLF). See Figure 1 for a flowchart summarizing my general approach to student loan management.

Refinance basics

One potential approach is to refinance your federal loans. Most federal loans today are at a relatively high interest rate of 6%-8%.³ Private refinancing can yield rates in the 3%-5% range, depending on the type of loan and other factors. For a loan balance of $200,000, the savings by refinancing could be approximately $2,000-$10,000 per year in interest alone. However, refinancing your loans with a private company eliminates the possibility of PSLF. Hence, you should only refinance federal loans once you are sure that you will not be pursuing PSLF. You may refinance your private loans anytime since they do not qualify for PSLF. There are multiple companies that provide student loan refinancing. The process can be done online, sometimes in as little as 30 minutes. There is generally little or no cost to refinancing, and many companies even provide a small cash-back incentive to refinance.

PSLF basics

The PSLF program allows borrowers to have the remainder of their direct loans forgiven after 10 years (120 monthly payments) under a qualifying income-driven repayment (IDR) plan.⁴ Figure 2 shows an overview of the various IDR plans. During the 120 payments, the borrower must work full time for a qualifying employer, which includes a government employer or a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. Loan forgiveness with PSLF is completely tax free. Importantly, the PSLF program only applies to direct federal loans. You can see your federal loan types and balances by visiting https://studentaid.gov/.

To PSLF or not to PSLF?

With direct federal loans, the decision to refinance or go for PSLF is a major fork in the road. PSLF can be a good option for borrowers with long training programs and with high student loan burdens (e.g., loan-to-income ratios of 1:1, 2:1 or higher). By contrast, borrowers with short training programs or relatively small loan burdens may be better off refinancing to a low interest rate and paying off loans quickly. Virtually all institutions that train residents and fellows are qualified government or 501(c)(3) organizations. Hence, a gastroenterology graduate generally will have completed at least 6 out of 10 years of payments by the end of training. Trainees who did a chief resident year or gastroenterology research track may have completed 7 or 8 years of qualifying payments already.

For trainees who are already planning an academic career, PSLF is often a good option. While PSLF can be a nice benefit, I would not advise making a career decision purely based on PSLF. Private practice jobs generally come with substantially higher salaries than academic and government jobs. This salary differential typically more than compensates for the loss of access to PSLF. Hence, I advise trainees to choose the practice setting that is best for their personal and career satisfaction, and then build a student loan management plan around that. The exception may be the trainee who has a very large student loan burden (e.g., loan-to-income ratio of 2:1 or 3:1).

Caveats with PSLF

There have been well publicized concerns about the future of PSLF, including proposals to eliminate or cap the program.^5,6 However, most proposed legislation has only recommended changes to PSLF for new borrowers. If you currently have existing federal loans, you would very likely be grandfathered into the existing PSLF terms. All federal master promissory notes since 2007 have cited PSLF as a loan repayment option.⁷ Hence, eliminating PSLF for existing borrowers seems unlikely since it would be changing the terms of an executed contract.⁸

There have also been widespread reports of high numbers of borrowers being denied applications for PSLF.^9,10 However, the majority of these applicants did not have correct types of loans, had not worked full time for qualifying employers or had not made the full 120 payments.¹¹ Yet some denials have apparently resulted from errors in tracking qualifying payments by FedLoan servicing.¹² Therefore it would be prudent to keep your own careful records of all qualifying payments towards PSLF.

The nuclear option: 20- to 25-year IDR-based forgiveness

An additional option allows borrowers to make IDRs for 20-25 years (details in Figure 2) and then having their remaining loan balance forgiven.¹³ This option is completely independent of PSLF. Borrowers can work full time or part time and can work for any employer, including private employers.

One additional option: NIH loan repayment programs

One additional solution to consider are the NIH Loan Repayment Programs (LRPs). These programs can provide substantial loan repayment (up to $50,000 annually) for trainees and attendings engaged in research that aligns with NIH priorities, including clinical research or health disparities research.¹⁴ Notably, the applicant’s research does not have to be NIH sponsored research.

Getting more information

The approach above is a general overview of student loan concepts for gastroenterologists. However, there are countless nuances and tactics that are beyond the scope of this introductory article. I encourage everyone to get additional information and advice when making your own loan management plan. There are many helpful online resources, podcasts, and books discussing the topic. Several companies provide detailed consultation on managing student loans. Such services may cost a few hundred dollars but could potentially save tens of thousands of dollars on student loan costs.

Dr. Jain is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology & hepatology, department of medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill. Dr. Jain has no conflicts of interest and no funding source.

References

1. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_332.45.asp

2. https://www.credible.com/blog/statistics/average-medical-school-debt/

3. https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/interest-rates

4. https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service

5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2019/09/24/how-to-get-your-public-service-loan-forgiveness-qualifying-payments-recounted/#18567f061f5d

6. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2018/54721

7. https://static.studentloans.gov/images/ApplicationAndPromissoryNote.pdf

8. https://www.biglawinvestor.com/pslf-promissory-note/

9. https://bostonstudentloanlawyer.com/scary-stats-for-public-service-loan-forgiveness/

10. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-government-loan-forgiveness-program-has-rejected-99-of-borrowers-so-far-2018-09-20

11. https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/loan-forgiveness/pslf-data

12. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/your-money/public-service-loan-forgiveness.html

13. https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven

14. https://www.lrp.nih.gov/eligibility-programs

The young gastroenterologist has no shortage of personal finance topics to juggle, ranging from investments, to life and disability coverage, and planning for retirement. But the elephant in the room is student loan management. Average medical student debt today is approximately $240,000, and debt burdens greater than $300,000 are becoming common.^1,2 With this staggering amount of debt, it is understandable why student loans are a major source of anxiety. Here, I will provide a brief introduction to student loan management for gastroenterologists.

Student loans: Basic strategy

It is important to distinguish between two major types of loans: private student loans and direct federal loans. With private student loans the best strategy in most cases is to refinance to a lower interest rate. For direct federal loans, however, the decision making is more complex. There are two major approaches to these federal loans – either 1) refinance, or 2) go for public service loan forgiveness (PSLF). See Figure 1 for a flowchart summarizing my general approach to student loan management.

Refinance basics

One potential approach is to refinance your federal loans. Most federal loans today are at a relatively high interest rate of 6%-8%.³ Private refinancing can yield rates in the 3%-5% range, depending on the type of loan and other factors. For a loan balance of $200,000, the savings by refinancing could be approximately $2,000-$10,000 per year in interest alone. However, refinancing your loans with a private company eliminates the possibility of PSLF. Hence, you should only refinance federal loans once you are sure that you will not be pursuing PSLF. You may refinance your private loans anytime since they do not qualify for PSLF. There are multiple companies that provide student loan refinancing. The process can be done online, sometimes in as little as 30 minutes. There is generally little or no cost to refinancing, and many companies even provide a small cash-back incentive to refinance.

PSLF basics

The PSLF program allows borrowers to have the remainder of their direct loans forgiven after 10 years (120 monthly payments) under a qualifying income-driven repayment (IDR) plan.⁴ Figure 2 shows an overview of the various IDR plans. During the 120 payments, the borrower must work full time for a qualifying employer, which includes a government employer or a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. Loan forgiveness with PSLF is completely tax free. Importantly, the PSLF program only applies to direct federal loans. You can see your federal loan types and balances by visiting https://studentaid.gov/.

To PSLF or not to PSLF?

With direct federal loans, the decision to refinance or go for PSLF is a major fork in the road. PSLF can be a good option for borrowers with long training programs and with high student loan burdens (e.g., loan-to-income ratios of 1:1, 2:1 or higher). By contrast, borrowers with short training programs or relatively small loan burdens may be better off refinancing to a low interest rate and paying off loans quickly. Virtually all institutions that train residents and fellows are qualified government or 501(c)(3) organizations. Hence, a gastroenterology graduate generally will have completed at least 6 out of 10 years of payments by the end of training. Trainees who did a chief resident year or gastroenterology research track may have completed 7 or 8 years of qualifying payments already.

For trainees who are already planning an academic career, PSLF is often a good option. While PSLF can be a nice benefit, I would not advise making a career decision purely based on PSLF. Private practice jobs generally come with substantially higher salaries than academic and government jobs. This salary differential typically more than compensates for the loss of access to PSLF. Hence, I advise trainees to choose the practice setting that is best for their personal and career satisfaction, and then build a student loan management plan around that. The exception may be the trainee who has a very large student loan burden (e.g., loan-to-income ratio of 2:1 or 3:1).

Caveats with PSLF

There have been well publicized concerns about the future of PSLF, including proposals to eliminate or cap the program.^5,6 However, most proposed legislation has only recommended changes to PSLF for new borrowers. If you currently have existing federal loans, you would very likely be grandfathered into the existing PSLF terms. All federal master promissory notes since 2007 have cited PSLF as a loan repayment option.⁷ Hence, eliminating PSLF for existing borrowers seems unlikely since it would be changing the terms of an executed contract.⁸

There have also been widespread reports of high numbers of borrowers being denied applications for PSLF.^9,10 However, the majority of these applicants did not have correct types of loans, had not worked full time for qualifying employers or had not made the full 120 payments.¹¹ Yet some denials have apparently resulted from errors in tracking qualifying payments by FedLoan servicing.¹² Therefore it would be prudent to keep your own careful records of all qualifying payments towards PSLF.

The nuclear option: 20- to 25-year IDR-based forgiveness

An additional option allows borrowers to make IDRs for 20-25 years (details in Figure 2) and then having their remaining loan balance forgiven.¹³ This option is completely independent of PSLF. Borrowers can work full time or part time and can work for any employer, including private employers.

One additional option: NIH loan repayment programs

One additional solution to consider are the NIH Loan Repayment Programs (LRPs). These programs can provide substantial loan repayment (up to $50,000 annually) for trainees and attendings engaged in research that aligns with NIH priorities, including clinical research or health disparities research.¹⁴ Notably, the applicant’s research does not have to be NIH sponsored research.

Getting more information

The approach above is a general overview of student loan concepts for gastroenterologists. However, there are countless nuances and tactics that are beyond the scope of this introductory article. I encourage everyone to get additional information and advice when making your own loan management plan. There are many helpful online resources, podcasts, and books discussing the topic. Several companies provide detailed consultation on managing student loans. Such services may cost a few hundred dollars but could potentially save tens of thousands of dollars on student loan costs.

Dr. Jain is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology & hepatology, department of medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill. Dr. Jain has no conflicts of interest and no funding source.

References

1. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_332.45.asp

2. https://www.credible.com/blog/statistics/average-medical-school-debt/

3. https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/interest-rates

4. https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service

5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2019/09/24/how-to-get-your-public-service-loan-forgiveness-qualifying-payments-recounted/#18567f061f5d

6. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2018/54721

7. https://static.studentloans.gov/images/ApplicationAndPromissoryNote.pdf

8. https://www.biglawinvestor.com/pslf-promissory-note/

9. https://bostonstudentloanlawyer.com/scary-stats-for-public-service-loan-forgiveness/

10. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-government-loan-forgiveness-program-has-rejected-99-of-borrowers-so-far-2018-09-20

11. https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/loan-forgiveness/pslf-data

12. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/your-money/public-service-loan-forgiveness.html

13. https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven

14. https://www.lrp.nih.gov/eligibility-programs

Telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) significantly improves depression, anxiety, and quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease, relative to usual care, according to trial results published in Neurology. The treatment’s effect on depression is “moderated by the reduction of negative thoughts,” the target of the intervention, the researchers said.

Telephone-based CBT may be a convenient option for patients, said lead study author Roseanne D. Dobkin, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, N.J., and the VA New Jersey Health Care System in Lyons. “A notable proportion of people with Parkinson’s [disease] do not receive the much needed mental health treatment to facilitate proactive coping with the daily challenges superimposed by their medical condition,” Dr. Dobkin said in a news release. “This study suggests that the effects of the [CBT] last long beyond when the treatment stopped and can be used alongside standard neurological care.”

An undertreated problem

Although depression affects about half of patients with Parkinson’s disease and is associated with physical and cognitive decline, it often goes overlooked and undertreated, the study authors said. Data about the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants are mixed. CBT holds promise for reducing depression in Parkinson’s disease, prior research suggests, but patients may have limited access to in-person sessions because of physical and geographic barriers.

To assess the efficacy of telephone-based CBT for depression in Parkinson’s disease, compared with community-based treatment as usual, Dr. Dobkin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial. Their study included 72 patients with Parkinson’s disease at an academic medical center. Participants had a depressive disorder, were between aged 35 and 85 years, had stable Parkinson’s disease and mental health treatment for at least 6 weeks, and had a family member or friend willing to participate in the study. The investigators excluded patients with possible dementia or marked cognitive impairment and active suicidal plans or intent.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive usual care plus telephone-based CBT or usual care only. Patients taking antidepressants were evenly divided between the groups.

Telephone-based CBT consisted of weekly 1-hour sessions for 10 weeks. During 6 months of follow-up, patients could receive one session per month if desired. The CBT “targeted negative thoughts (e.g., ‘I have no control’; ‘I am helpless’) and behaviors (e.g., avoidance, excessive worry, lack of exercise),” the investigators said. In addition, therapists trained patients’ care partners by telephone to help patients between sessions. Treatment as usual was defined by patients’ health care teams. For most participants in both groups, treatment as usual included taking antidepressant medication or receiving psychotherapy in the community.

Change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included whether patients considered their depression much improved and improvements in depression severity (as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]), anxiety (as measured by the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A]), and quality of life. The researchers also assessed negative thinking using the Inference Questionnaire. Blinded raters assessed outcomes.
 

Sustained improvements

Thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive telephone-based CBT, and 35 were randomized to treatment as usual. Overall, 70% were taking antidepressants, and 14% continued receiving psychotherapy from community providers of their choice during the trial. Participants’ average age was 65 years, and 51% were female.

Post treatment, mean improvement in HAM-D score from baseline was 6.53 points in the telephone-based CBT group, compared with −0.27 points in the control group. “Effects at the end of treatment were maintained at 6-month follow-up,” the researchers reported.

About 40% of patients in the CBT group reported that their depression was much improved or very much improved, compared with none of the patients in the control group. Responders had mild to minimal symptomatology on the HAM-D, which indicates that the changes were clinically significant, the authors said.

Secondary outcomes also favored telephone-based CBT. “The intervention was feasible and highly acceptable, yielding an 88% retention rate over the 9-month trial,” Dr. Dobkin and colleagues said.

Compared with other control conditions, treatment-as-usual controls may enhance the effect size of an intervention, the authors noted. In addition, factors such as therapeutic relationship, time, and attention likely contribute to psychotherapy outcomes.
 

Success may hinge on cognitive ability

“The success of this trial highlights the need for further efficacy studies targeting neuropsychiatric manifestations of [Parkinson’s disease] and adds urgency to the discussion over policies regarding access to tele–mental health, especially for vulnerable populations with limited access to in-person mental health services,” Gregory M. Pontone, MD, and Kelly A. Mills, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Pontone and Dr. Mills are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“Only rudimentary evidence” exists to guide the treatment of depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the editorialists said. “Patient preference and tolerability suggest that nonpharmacologic therapies, such as CBT, are preferred as first-line treatment. Yet access to qualified CBT practitioners, especially those with a clinical knowledge of [Parkinson’s disease], is limited.”

Despite its advantages and the encouraging results, CBT may have important limitations as well, they said. Patients require a certain degree of cognitive ability to benefit from CBT, and the prevalence of dementia among patients with Parkinson’s disease is about 30%.

Nevertheless, the trial provided evidence of target engagement. “Though caveats include the single-blind design and potential confounding by time spent with patient and caregiver, the authors demonstrated that improvement was mediated by the mechanism of CBT – a reduction in negative thinking.”

The trial was funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the Parkinson’s Alliance (Parkinson’s Unity Walk). Dr. Mills disclosed a patent pending for a system for phase-dependent cortical brain stimulation, National Institutes of Health funding, pending funding from the Michael J. Fox Foundation, and commercial research support from Global Kinetics Corporation. Dr. Pontone is a consultant for Acadia Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dobkin RD et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009292.

Telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) significantly improves depression, anxiety, and quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease, relative to usual care, according to trial results published in Neurology. The treatment’s effect on depression is “moderated by the reduction of negative thoughts,” the target of the intervention, the researchers said.

Telephone-based CBT may be a convenient option for patients, said lead study author Roseanne D. Dobkin, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, N.J., and the VA New Jersey Health Care System in Lyons. “A notable proportion of people with Parkinson’s [disease] do not receive the much needed mental health treatment to facilitate proactive coping with the daily challenges superimposed by their medical condition,” Dr. Dobkin said in a news release. “This study suggests that the effects of the [CBT] last long beyond when the treatment stopped and can be used alongside standard neurological care.”

An undertreated problem

Although depression affects about half of patients with Parkinson’s disease and is associated with physical and cognitive decline, it often goes overlooked and undertreated, the study authors said. Data about the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants are mixed. CBT holds promise for reducing depression in Parkinson’s disease, prior research suggests, but patients may have limited access to in-person sessions because of physical and geographic barriers.

To assess the efficacy of telephone-based CBT for depression in Parkinson’s disease, compared with community-based treatment as usual, Dr. Dobkin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial. Their study included 72 patients with Parkinson’s disease at an academic medical center. Participants had a depressive disorder, were between aged 35 and 85 years, had stable Parkinson’s disease and mental health treatment for at least 6 weeks, and had a family member or friend willing to participate in the study. The investigators excluded patients with possible dementia or marked cognitive impairment and active suicidal plans or intent.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive usual care plus telephone-based CBT or usual care only. Patients taking antidepressants were evenly divided between the groups.

Telephone-based CBT consisted of weekly 1-hour sessions for 10 weeks. During 6 months of follow-up, patients could receive one session per month if desired. The CBT “targeted negative thoughts (e.g., ‘I have no control’; ‘I am helpless’) and behaviors (e.g., avoidance, excessive worry, lack of exercise),” the investigators said. In addition, therapists trained patients’ care partners by telephone to help patients between sessions. Treatment as usual was defined by patients’ health care teams. For most participants in both groups, treatment as usual included taking antidepressant medication or receiving psychotherapy in the community.

Change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included whether patients considered their depression much improved and improvements in depression severity (as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]), anxiety (as measured by the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A]), and quality of life. The researchers also assessed negative thinking using the Inference Questionnaire. Blinded raters assessed outcomes.
 

Sustained improvements

Thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive telephone-based CBT, and 35 were randomized to treatment as usual. Overall, 70% were taking antidepressants, and 14% continued receiving psychotherapy from community providers of their choice during the trial. Participants’ average age was 65 years, and 51% were female.

Post treatment, mean improvement in HAM-D score from baseline was 6.53 points in the telephone-based CBT group, compared with −0.27 points in the control group. “Effects at the end of treatment were maintained at 6-month follow-up,” the researchers reported.

About 40% of patients in the CBT group reported that their depression was much improved or very much improved, compared with none of the patients in the control group. Responders had mild to minimal symptomatology on the HAM-D, which indicates that the changes were clinically significant, the authors said.

Secondary outcomes also favored telephone-based CBT. “The intervention was feasible and highly acceptable, yielding an 88% retention rate over the 9-month trial,” Dr. Dobkin and colleagues said.

Compared with other control conditions, treatment-as-usual controls may enhance the effect size of an intervention, the authors noted. In addition, factors such as therapeutic relationship, time, and attention likely contribute to psychotherapy outcomes.
 

Success may hinge on cognitive ability

“The success of this trial highlights the need for further efficacy studies targeting neuropsychiatric manifestations of [Parkinson’s disease] and adds urgency to the discussion over policies regarding access to tele–mental health, especially for vulnerable populations with limited access to in-person mental health services,” Gregory M. Pontone, MD, and Kelly A. Mills, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Pontone and Dr. Mills are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“Only rudimentary evidence” exists to guide the treatment of depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the editorialists said. “Patient preference and tolerability suggest that nonpharmacologic therapies, such as CBT, are preferred as first-line treatment. Yet access to qualified CBT practitioners, especially those with a clinical knowledge of [Parkinson’s disease], is limited.”

Despite its advantages and the encouraging results, CBT may have important limitations as well, they said. Patients require a certain degree of cognitive ability to benefit from CBT, and the prevalence of dementia among patients with Parkinson’s disease is about 30%.

Nevertheless, the trial provided evidence of target engagement. “Though caveats include the single-blind design and potential confounding by time spent with patient and caregiver, the authors demonstrated that improvement was mediated by the mechanism of CBT – a reduction in negative thinking.”

The trial was funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the Parkinson’s Alliance (Parkinson’s Unity Walk). Dr. Mills disclosed a patent pending for a system for phase-dependent cortical brain stimulation, National Institutes of Health funding, pending funding from the Michael J. Fox Foundation, and commercial research support from Global Kinetics Corporation. Dr. Pontone is a consultant for Acadia Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dobkin RD et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009292.

Telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) significantly improves depression, anxiety, and quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease, relative to usual care, according to trial results published in Neurology. The treatment’s effect on depression is “moderated by the reduction of negative thoughts,” the target of the intervention, the researchers said.

Telephone-based CBT may be a convenient option for patients, said lead study author Roseanne D. Dobkin, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, N.J., and the VA New Jersey Health Care System in Lyons. “A notable proportion of people with Parkinson’s [disease] do not receive the much needed mental health treatment to facilitate proactive coping with the daily challenges superimposed by their medical condition,” Dr. Dobkin said in a news release. “This study suggests that the effects of the [CBT] last long beyond when the treatment stopped and can be used alongside standard neurological care.”

An undertreated problem

Although depression affects about half of patients with Parkinson’s disease and is associated with physical and cognitive decline, it often goes overlooked and undertreated, the study authors said. Data about the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants are mixed. CBT holds promise for reducing depression in Parkinson’s disease, prior research suggests, but patients may have limited access to in-person sessions because of physical and geographic barriers.

To assess the efficacy of telephone-based CBT for depression in Parkinson’s disease, compared with community-based treatment as usual, Dr. Dobkin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial. Their study included 72 patients with Parkinson’s disease at an academic medical center. Participants had a depressive disorder, were between aged 35 and 85 years, had stable Parkinson’s disease and mental health treatment for at least 6 weeks, and had a family member or friend willing to participate in the study. The investigators excluded patients with possible dementia or marked cognitive impairment and active suicidal plans or intent.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive usual care plus telephone-based CBT or usual care only. Patients taking antidepressants were evenly divided between the groups.

Telephone-based CBT consisted of weekly 1-hour sessions for 10 weeks. During 6 months of follow-up, patients could receive one session per month if desired. The CBT “targeted negative thoughts (e.g., ‘I have no control’; ‘I am helpless’) and behaviors (e.g., avoidance, excessive worry, lack of exercise),” the investigators said. In addition, therapists trained patients’ care partners by telephone to help patients between sessions. Treatment as usual was defined by patients’ health care teams. For most participants in both groups, treatment as usual included taking antidepressant medication or receiving psychotherapy in the community.

Change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included whether patients considered their depression much improved and improvements in depression severity (as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]), anxiety (as measured by the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A]), and quality of life. The researchers also assessed negative thinking using the Inference Questionnaire. Blinded raters assessed outcomes.
 

Sustained improvements

Thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive telephone-based CBT, and 35 were randomized to treatment as usual. Overall, 70% were taking antidepressants, and 14% continued receiving psychotherapy from community providers of their choice during the trial. Participants’ average age was 65 years, and 51% were female.

Post treatment, mean improvement in HAM-D score from baseline was 6.53 points in the telephone-based CBT group, compared with −0.27 points in the control group. “Effects at the end of treatment were maintained at 6-month follow-up,” the researchers reported.

About 40% of patients in the CBT group reported that their depression was much improved or very much improved, compared with none of the patients in the control group. Responders had mild to minimal symptomatology on the HAM-D, which indicates that the changes were clinically significant, the authors said.

Secondary outcomes also favored telephone-based CBT. “The intervention was feasible and highly acceptable, yielding an 88% retention rate over the 9-month trial,” Dr. Dobkin and colleagues said.

Compared with other control conditions, treatment-as-usual controls may enhance the effect size of an intervention, the authors noted. In addition, factors such as therapeutic relationship, time, and attention likely contribute to psychotherapy outcomes.
 

Success may hinge on cognitive ability

“The success of this trial highlights the need for further efficacy studies targeting neuropsychiatric manifestations of [Parkinson’s disease] and adds urgency to the discussion over policies regarding access to tele–mental health, especially for vulnerable populations with limited access to in-person mental health services,” Gregory M. Pontone, MD, and Kelly A. Mills, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Pontone and Dr. Mills are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“Only rudimentary evidence” exists to guide the treatment of depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the editorialists said. “Patient preference and tolerability suggest that nonpharmacologic therapies, such as CBT, are preferred as first-line treatment. Yet access to qualified CBT practitioners, especially those with a clinical knowledge of [Parkinson’s disease], is limited.”

Despite its advantages and the encouraging results, CBT may have important limitations as well, they said. Patients require a certain degree of cognitive ability to benefit from CBT, and the prevalence of dementia among patients with Parkinson’s disease is about 30%.

Nevertheless, the trial provided evidence of target engagement. “Though caveats include the single-blind design and potential confounding by time spent with patient and caregiver, the authors demonstrated that improvement was mediated by the mechanism of CBT – a reduction in negative thinking.”

The trial was funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the Parkinson’s Alliance (Parkinson’s Unity Walk). Dr. Mills disclosed a patent pending for a system for phase-dependent cortical brain stimulation, National Institutes of Health funding, pending funding from the Michael J. Fox Foundation, and commercial research support from Global Kinetics Corporation. Dr. Pontone is a consultant for Acadia Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dobkin RD et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009292.