MDedge Pediatrics

Women and girls aged 13 years and older with no current diagnosis of anxiety should be screened routinely for anxiety, according to a new recommendation from the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative.

The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in women in the United States is 40%, approximately twice that of men, and anxiety can be a manifestation of underlying issues including posttraumatic stress, sexual harassment, and assault, wrote Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues on behalf of the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI), a national coalition of women’s health professional organizations and patient representatives.

“The WPSI based its rationale for anxiety screening on several considerations,” the researchers noted. “Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent mental health disorders in women, and the problems created by untreated anxiety can impair function in all areas of a woman’s life.”

“Effective screening may lead to earlier or timelier treatment (including behavioral and medical interventions) and result in improved clinical outcomes, such as symptoms, function, and quality of life. Screening may also lead to the detection of associated conditions, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, which may also require treatment,” they wrote.

To support the recommendation, the researchers evaluated data from 33 studies and 2 systematic reviews for a total of 171 studies. Most studies included screening instruments that involved clinician- or patient-administered questionnaires designed for use in clinical practice. Although none of the studies evaluated the overall effectiveness versus harm of screening for anxiety, the strength of evidence for the effectiveness of anxiety treatment ranged from moderate to high, and the evidence of harms ranged from low for cognitive-behavioral therapy to moderate for anxiety medications.

“Overall, the WPSI determined that the balance of benefits and harms would likely be favorable on the basis of the high prevalence of anxiety in women; its substantial effect on health, function, and quality of life; and evidence on the accuracy of screening instruments in primary care settings and the effectiveness and harms of treatment,” the researchers wrote.

Although anxiety screening is not currently routine in clinical practice in the United States, such screening could be done quickly and efficiently as part of an intake visit in a primary care or obstetric setting, using a brief screening tool similar to those used for depression, the researchers wrote. The goal of anxiety screening, as with depression screening, is to identify those who need further evaluation to diagnose or rule out an anxiety disorder.

“A revised version [of the draft recommendation] was adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration in December 2019; it will be incorporated into the summary of covered benefits for preventive services without cost sharing as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act immediately or no later than 1 January 2021, depending on individual coverage,” the researchers noted.

“Covered benefits apply to most group health plans and issuers of group and individual health insurance coverage, as well as to persons who qualify for Medicaid on the basis of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act,” they wrote.

“Because anxiety disorders can be successfully treated, early detection through the use of a brief questionnaire could prevent years of symptoms and impairment in the lives of women at every stage of life,” they concluded.

Aaron Sutton, LCSW, a behavioral health consultant at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health, expressed support for the guidelines in an interview.

“With almost half of all women experiencing an anxiety disorder sometime in their life, effective recognition and treatment of anxiety disorders is needed,” he said.

Mr. Sutton described treatment as being “fairly benign” with the initial approach being cognitive-behavioral therapy, a form of psychological talk therapy, and first-line pharmacologic therapies being SSRIs and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

Mr. Sutton also explained how he expects effective screening and treatment will benefit women with anxiety and the health care system.

“Women will see improvement in areas such as personal relationships, work, school, and social settings. The health care system will see benefits as costs related to anxiety disorders, be it direct or indirect, are in the billions of dollars,” he said.

Although screening for anxiety will increase the workload of primary care physicians, anxiety screening should be included and could perhaps be administered in conjunction with the routine depression screening already recommended as part of primary care visits, Mr. Sutton noted.

“Anxiety disorders can be successfully treated, and early detection can prevent years of symptoms and impairment,” he emphasized.

“Anxiety often occurs among adolescents and adult women and often becomes a chronic problem with impairments,” said Cynthia Pfeffer, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview. “Screening for anxiety could identify and enable planning to decrease and prevent this impairing prevalent condition and its associated problems. For example, anxiety can impair adolescents’ academic and social functioning and if this is lasting also impair their success in work and future planning for families. There are successful treatments for anxiety and identification of individuals at an early time may prevent impairments in daily functioning.”

Dr. Pfeffer noted that steps to overcome barriers to prevention and treatment for anxiety include “educating health care professionals about the problems caused from anxiety, learning means to identify and diagnose anxiety, and developing proficiency in offering methods to prevent and intervene for women with symptoms of anxiety.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that anxiety is prevalent among females of all ages and often begins early and becomes chronic.

“There are excellent treatments including psychotherapy and medication that can decrease and prevent anxiety,” she emphasized. “Training practicing clinicians including MDs as well as other professionals in the health care system about anxiety will enhance the wellbeing of women.”

More research is needed to evaluate methods used during health care visits for anxiety screening and treatment in order to determine valid means of preventing the impairments associated with anxiety, Dr. Pfeffer said.

Mr. Sutton noted that no trials “have evaluated overall effectiveness or potential harms including labeling, misdiagnosis, and overdiagnosis.” Other areas in need of research include the changes in incidence and prevalence of anxiety over time, as well as specific risk factors including marriage, divorce, pregnancy, and childbirth, he added.

The research for the recommendation was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mr. Sutton had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pfeffer has written extensively on depression and anxiety in children, adolescents, and adults. She had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Gregory KD et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 June 9. doi: 10.7326/M20-0580.

Women and girls aged 13 years and older with no current diagnosis of anxiety should be screened routinely for anxiety, according to a new recommendation from the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative.

The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in women in the United States is 40%, approximately twice that of men, and anxiety can be a manifestation of underlying issues including posttraumatic stress, sexual harassment, and assault, wrote Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues on behalf of the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI), a national coalition of women’s health professional organizations and patient representatives.

“The WPSI based its rationale for anxiety screening on several considerations,” the researchers noted. “Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent mental health disorders in women, and the problems created by untreated anxiety can impair function in all areas of a woman’s life.”

“Effective screening may lead to earlier or timelier treatment (including behavioral and medical interventions) and result in improved clinical outcomes, such as symptoms, function, and quality of life. Screening may also lead to the detection of associated conditions, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, which may also require treatment,” they wrote.

To support the recommendation, the researchers evaluated data from 33 studies and 2 systematic reviews for a total of 171 studies. Most studies included screening instruments that involved clinician- or patient-administered questionnaires designed for use in clinical practice. Although none of the studies evaluated the overall effectiveness versus harm of screening for anxiety, the strength of evidence for the effectiveness of anxiety treatment ranged from moderate to high, and the evidence of harms ranged from low for cognitive-behavioral therapy to moderate for anxiety medications.

“Overall, the WPSI determined that the balance of benefits and harms would likely be favorable on the basis of the high prevalence of anxiety in women; its substantial effect on health, function, and quality of life; and evidence on the accuracy of screening instruments in primary care settings and the effectiveness and harms of treatment,” the researchers wrote.

Although anxiety screening is not currently routine in clinical practice in the United States, such screening could be done quickly and efficiently as part of an intake visit in a primary care or obstetric setting, using a brief screening tool similar to those used for depression, the researchers wrote. The goal of anxiety screening, as with depression screening, is to identify those who need further evaluation to diagnose or rule out an anxiety disorder.

“A revised version [of the draft recommendation] was adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration in December 2019; it will be incorporated into the summary of covered benefits for preventive services without cost sharing as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act immediately or no later than 1 January 2021, depending on individual coverage,” the researchers noted.

“Covered benefits apply to most group health plans and issuers of group and individual health insurance coverage, as well as to persons who qualify for Medicaid on the basis of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act,” they wrote.

“Because anxiety disorders can be successfully treated, early detection through the use of a brief questionnaire could prevent years of symptoms and impairment in the lives of women at every stage of life,” they concluded.

Aaron Sutton, LCSW, a behavioral health consultant at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health, expressed support for the guidelines in an interview.

“With almost half of all women experiencing an anxiety disorder sometime in their life, effective recognition and treatment of anxiety disorders is needed,” he said.

Mr. Sutton described treatment as being “fairly benign” with the initial approach being cognitive-behavioral therapy, a form of psychological talk therapy, and first-line pharmacologic therapies being SSRIs and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

Mr. Sutton also explained how he expects effective screening and treatment will benefit women with anxiety and the health care system.

“Women will see improvement in areas such as personal relationships, work, school, and social settings. The health care system will see benefits as costs related to anxiety disorders, be it direct or indirect, are in the billions of dollars,” he said.

Although screening for anxiety will increase the workload of primary care physicians, anxiety screening should be included and could perhaps be administered in conjunction with the routine depression screening already recommended as part of primary care visits, Mr. Sutton noted.

“Anxiety disorders can be successfully treated, and early detection can prevent years of symptoms and impairment,” he emphasized.

“Anxiety often occurs among adolescents and adult women and often becomes a chronic problem with impairments,” said Cynthia Pfeffer, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview. “Screening for anxiety could identify and enable planning to decrease and prevent this impairing prevalent condition and its associated problems. For example, anxiety can impair adolescents’ academic and social functioning and if this is lasting also impair their success in work and future planning for families. There are successful treatments for anxiety and identification of individuals at an early time may prevent impairments in daily functioning.”

Dr. Pfeffer noted that steps to overcome barriers to prevention and treatment for anxiety include “educating health care professionals about the problems caused from anxiety, learning means to identify and diagnose anxiety, and developing proficiency in offering methods to prevent and intervene for women with symptoms of anxiety.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that anxiety is prevalent among females of all ages and often begins early and becomes chronic.

“There are excellent treatments including psychotherapy and medication that can decrease and prevent anxiety,” she emphasized. “Training practicing clinicians including MDs as well as other professionals in the health care system about anxiety will enhance the wellbeing of women.”

More research is needed to evaluate methods used during health care visits for anxiety screening and treatment in order to determine valid means of preventing the impairments associated with anxiety, Dr. Pfeffer said.

Mr. Sutton noted that no trials “have evaluated overall effectiveness or potential harms including labeling, misdiagnosis, and overdiagnosis.” Other areas in need of research include the changes in incidence and prevalence of anxiety over time, as well as specific risk factors including marriage, divorce, pregnancy, and childbirth, he added.

The research for the recommendation was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mr. Sutton had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pfeffer has written extensively on depression and anxiety in children, adolescents, and adults. She had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Gregory KD et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 June 9. doi: 10.7326/M20-0580.

Women and girls aged 13 years and older with no current diagnosis of anxiety should be screened routinely for anxiety, according to a new recommendation from the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative.

The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in women in the United States is 40%, approximately twice that of men, and anxiety can be a manifestation of underlying issues including posttraumatic stress, sexual harassment, and assault, wrote Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues on behalf of the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI), a national coalition of women’s health professional organizations and patient representatives.

“The WPSI based its rationale for anxiety screening on several considerations,” the researchers noted. “Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent mental health disorders in women, and the problems created by untreated anxiety can impair function in all areas of a woman’s life.”

“Effective screening may lead to earlier or timelier treatment (including behavioral and medical interventions) and result in improved clinical outcomes, such as symptoms, function, and quality of life. Screening may also lead to the detection of associated conditions, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, which may also require treatment,” they wrote.

To support the recommendation, the researchers evaluated data from 33 studies and 2 systematic reviews for a total of 171 studies. Most studies included screening instruments that involved clinician- or patient-administered questionnaires designed for use in clinical practice. Although none of the studies evaluated the overall effectiveness versus harm of screening for anxiety, the strength of evidence for the effectiveness of anxiety treatment ranged from moderate to high, and the evidence of harms ranged from low for cognitive-behavioral therapy to moderate for anxiety medications.

“Overall, the WPSI determined that the balance of benefits and harms would likely be favorable on the basis of the high prevalence of anxiety in women; its substantial effect on health, function, and quality of life; and evidence on the accuracy of screening instruments in primary care settings and the effectiveness and harms of treatment,” the researchers wrote.

Although anxiety screening is not currently routine in clinical practice in the United States, such screening could be done quickly and efficiently as part of an intake visit in a primary care or obstetric setting, using a brief screening tool similar to those used for depression, the researchers wrote. The goal of anxiety screening, as with depression screening, is to identify those who need further evaluation to diagnose or rule out an anxiety disorder.

“A revised version [of the draft recommendation] was adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration in December 2019; it will be incorporated into the summary of covered benefits for preventive services without cost sharing as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act immediately or no later than 1 January 2021, depending on individual coverage,” the researchers noted.

“Covered benefits apply to most group health plans and issuers of group and individual health insurance coverage, as well as to persons who qualify for Medicaid on the basis of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act,” they wrote.

“Because anxiety disorders can be successfully treated, early detection through the use of a brief questionnaire could prevent years of symptoms and impairment in the lives of women at every stage of life,” they concluded.

Aaron Sutton, LCSW, a behavioral health consultant at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health, expressed support for the guidelines in an interview.

“With almost half of all women experiencing an anxiety disorder sometime in their life, effective recognition and treatment of anxiety disorders is needed,” he said.

Mr. Sutton described treatment as being “fairly benign” with the initial approach being cognitive-behavioral therapy, a form of psychological talk therapy, and first-line pharmacologic therapies being SSRIs and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

Mr. Sutton also explained how he expects effective screening and treatment will benefit women with anxiety and the health care system.

“Women will see improvement in areas such as personal relationships, work, school, and social settings. The health care system will see benefits as costs related to anxiety disorders, be it direct or indirect, are in the billions of dollars,” he said.

Although screening for anxiety will increase the workload of primary care physicians, anxiety screening should be included and could perhaps be administered in conjunction with the routine depression screening already recommended as part of primary care visits, Mr. Sutton noted.

“Anxiety disorders can be successfully treated, and early detection can prevent years of symptoms and impairment,” he emphasized.

“Anxiety often occurs among adolescents and adult women and often becomes a chronic problem with impairments,” said Cynthia Pfeffer, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview. “Screening for anxiety could identify and enable planning to decrease and prevent this impairing prevalent condition and its associated problems. For example, anxiety can impair adolescents’ academic and social functioning and if this is lasting also impair their success in work and future planning for families. There are successful treatments for anxiety and identification of individuals at an early time may prevent impairments in daily functioning.”

Dr. Pfeffer noted that steps to overcome barriers to prevention and treatment for anxiety include “educating health care professionals about the problems caused from anxiety, learning means to identify and diagnose anxiety, and developing proficiency in offering methods to prevent and intervene for women with symptoms of anxiety.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that anxiety is prevalent among females of all ages and often begins early and becomes chronic.

“There are excellent treatments including psychotherapy and medication that can decrease and prevent anxiety,” she emphasized. “Training practicing clinicians including MDs as well as other professionals in the health care system about anxiety will enhance the wellbeing of women.”

More research is needed to evaluate methods used during health care visits for anxiety screening and treatment in order to determine valid means of preventing the impairments associated with anxiety, Dr. Pfeffer said.

Mr. Sutton noted that no trials “have evaluated overall effectiveness or potential harms including labeling, misdiagnosis, and overdiagnosis.” Other areas in need of research include the changes in incidence and prevalence of anxiety over time, as well as specific risk factors including marriage, divorce, pregnancy, and childbirth, he added.

The research for the recommendation was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mr. Sutton had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pfeffer has written extensively on depression and anxiety in children, adolescents, and adults. She had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Gregory KD et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 June 9. doi: 10.7326/M20-0580.

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

About 6% of parents in the United States are hesitant about routine childhood vaccination, whereas 26% are hesitant about yearly influenza vaccination, according to a nationally representative survey.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Influenza vaccination hesitancy may be driven by concerns about vaccine effectiveness, researchers wrote in Pediatrics. These findings “underscore the importance of better communicating to providers and parents the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in reducing severity and morbidity from influenza, even in years when the vaccine has relatively low effectiveness,” noted Allison Kempe, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and director of the Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

The World Health Organization considers vaccine hesitancy a leading threat to global health, but national data about vaccine hesitancy in the United States are limited. To assess hesitancy about routine childhood and influenza vaccinations and related factors, Dr. Kempe and colleagues surveyed more than 2,000 parents in February 2019.

The investigators used an online panel to survey a nationally representative sample of families with children aged between 6 months and 18 years. Parents completed a modified version of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which measures confidence in and concerns about vaccines. Parents with an average score greater than 3 on the scale were considered hesitant.

Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy

Of 4,445 parents sampled, 2,176 completed the survey and 2,052 were eligible respondents. For routine childhood vaccines, the average score on the modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 6%. For influenza vaccine, the average score was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 26%.

Among hesitant parents, 68% had deferred or refused routine childhood vaccination, compared with 9% of nonhesitant parents (risk ratio, 8.0). For the influenza vaccine, 70% of hesitant parents had deferred or refused influenza vaccination for their child versus 10% of nonhesitant parents (RR, 7.0). Parents were more likely to strongly agree that routine childhood vaccines are effective, compared with the influenza vaccine (70% vs. 26%). “Hesitancy about influenza vaccination is largely driven by concerns about low vaccine effectiveness,” Dr. Kempe and associates wrote.

Although concern about serious side effects was the factor most associated with hesitancy, the percentage of parents who were strongly (12%) or somewhat (27%) concerned about serious side effects was the same for routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines. Other factors associated with hesitancy for both routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines included lower educational level and household income less than 400% of the federal poverty level.

The survey data may be subject to reporting bias based on social desirability, the authors noted. In addition, the exclusion of infants younger than 6 months may have resulted in an underestimate of hesitancy.

“Although influenza vaccine could be included as a ‘routine’ vaccine, in that it is recommended yearly, we hypothesized that parents view it differently from other childhood vaccines because each year it needs to be given again, its content and effectiveness vary, and it addresses a disease that is often perceived as minor, compared with other childhood diseases,” Dr. Kempe and colleagues wrote. Interventions to counter hesitancy have “a surprising lack of evidence,” and “more work needs to be done to develop methods that are practical and effective for convincing vaccine-hesitant parents to vaccinate.”
 

Logical next step

“From the pragmatic standpoint of improving immunization rates and disease control, determining the correct evidence-based messaging to counter these perceptions is the next logical step,” Annabelle de St. Maurice, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at University of California, Los Angeles, and Kathryn Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Communications should be focused on the burden of influenza in children, rebranding influenza vaccine as a ‘routine’ childhood immunization, reassurance on influenza vaccine safety, and discussion of the efficacy of influenza vaccine in preventing severe disease,” they wrote. “Even in the years when there is a poor match, the vaccine is impactful.”

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Two study authors disclosed financial ties to Sanofi Pasteur, with one also disclosing financial ties to Merck, for work related to vaccinations. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. de St. Maurice indicated that she had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Edwards disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH; consulting for Merck, Bionet, and IBM; and serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Sanofi, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Seqirus, Moderna, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3852.
 

About 6% of parents in the United States are hesitant about routine childhood vaccination, whereas 26% are hesitant about yearly influenza vaccination, according to a nationally representative survey.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Influenza vaccination hesitancy may be driven by concerns about vaccine effectiveness, researchers wrote in Pediatrics. These findings “underscore the importance of better communicating to providers and parents the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in reducing severity and morbidity from influenza, even in years when the vaccine has relatively low effectiveness,” noted Allison Kempe, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and director of the Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

The World Health Organization considers vaccine hesitancy a leading threat to global health, but national data about vaccine hesitancy in the United States are limited. To assess hesitancy about routine childhood and influenza vaccinations and related factors, Dr. Kempe and colleagues surveyed more than 2,000 parents in February 2019.

The investigators used an online panel to survey a nationally representative sample of families with children aged between 6 months and 18 years. Parents completed a modified version of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which measures confidence in and concerns about vaccines. Parents with an average score greater than 3 on the scale were considered hesitant.

Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy

Of 4,445 parents sampled, 2,176 completed the survey and 2,052 were eligible respondents. For routine childhood vaccines, the average score on the modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 6%. For influenza vaccine, the average score was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 26%.

Among hesitant parents, 68% had deferred or refused routine childhood vaccination, compared with 9% of nonhesitant parents (risk ratio, 8.0). For the influenza vaccine, 70% of hesitant parents had deferred or refused influenza vaccination for their child versus 10% of nonhesitant parents (RR, 7.0). Parents were more likely to strongly agree that routine childhood vaccines are effective, compared with the influenza vaccine (70% vs. 26%). “Hesitancy about influenza vaccination is largely driven by concerns about low vaccine effectiveness,” Dr. Kempe and associates wrote.

Although concern about serious side effects was the factor most associated with hesitancy, the percentage of parents who were strongly (12%) or somewhat (27%) concerned about serious side effects was the same for routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines. Other factors associated with hesitancy for both routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines included lower educational level and household income less than 400% of the federal poverty level.

The survey data may be subject to reporting bias based on social desirability, the authors noted. In addition, the exclusion of infants younger than 6 months may have resulted in an underestimate of hesitancy.

“Although influenza vaccine could be included as a ‘routine’ vaccine, in that it is recommended yearly, we hypothesized that parents view it differently from other childhood vaccines because each year it needs to be given again, its content and effectiveness vary, and it addresses a disease that is often perceived as minor, compared with other childhood diseases,” Dr. Kempe and colleagues wrote. Interventions to counter hesitancy have “a surprising lack of evidence,” and “more work needs to be done to develop methods that are practical and effective for convincing vaccine-hesitant parents to vaccinate.”
 

Logical next step

“From the pragmatic standpoint of improving immunization rates and disease control, determining the correct evidence-based messaging to counter these perceptions is the next logical step,” Annabelle de St. Maurice, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at University of California, Los Angeles, and Kathryn Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Communications should be focused on the burden of influenza in children, rebranding influenza vaccine as a ‘routine’ childhood immunization, reassurance on influenza vaccine safety, and discussion of the efficacy of influenza vaccine in preventing severe disease,” they wrote. “Even in the years when there is a poor match, the vaccine is impactful.”

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Two study authors disclosed financial ties to Sanofi Pasteur, with one also disclosing financial ties to Merck, for work related to vaccinations. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. de St. Maurice indicated that she had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Edwards disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH; consulting for Merck, Bionet, and IBM; and serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Sanofi, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Seqirus, Moderna, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3852.
 

About 6% of parents in the United States are hesitant about routine childhood vaccination, whereas 26% are hesitant about yearly influenza vaccination, according to a nationally representative survey.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Influenza vaccination hesitancy may be driven by concerns about vaccine effectiveness, researchers wrote in Pediatrics. These findings “underscore the importance of better communicating to providers and parents the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in reducing severity and morbidity from influenza, even in years when the vaccine has relatively low effectiveness,” noted Allison Kempe, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and director of the Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

The World Health Organization considers vaccine hesitancy a leading threat to global health, but national data about vaccine hesitancy in the United States are limited. To assess hesitancy about routine childhood and influenza vaccinations and related factors, Dr. Kempe and colleagues surveyed more than 2,000 parents in February 2019.

The investigators used an online panel to survey a nationally representative sample of families with children aged between 6 months and 18 years. Parents completed a modified version of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which measures confidence in and concerns about vaccines. Parents with an average score greater than 3 on the scale were considered hesitant.

Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy

Of 4,445 parents sampled, 2,176 completed the survey and 2,052 were eligible respondents. For routine childhood vaccines, the average score on the modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 6%. For influenza vaccine, the average score was 2 and the percentage of hesitant parents was 26%.

Among hesitant parents, 68% had deferred or refused routine childhood vaccination, compared with 9% of nonhesitant parents (risk ratio, 8.0). For the influenza vaccine, 70% of hesitant parents had deferred or refused influenza vaccination for their child versus 10% of nonhesitant parents (RR, 7.0). Parents were more likely to strongly agree that routine childhood vaccines are effective, compared with the influenza vaccine (70% vs. 26%). “Hesitancy about influenza vaccination is largely driven by concerns about low vaccine effectiveness,” Dr. Kempe and associates wrote.

Although concern about serious side effects was the factor most associated with hesitancy, the percentage of parents who were strongly (12%) or somewhat (27%) concerned about serious side effects was the same for routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines. Other factors associated with hesitancy for both routine childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines included lower educational level and household income less than 400% of the federal poverty level.

The survey data may be subject to reporting bias based on social desirability, the authors noted. In addition, the exclusion of infants younger than 6 months may have resulted in an underestimate of hesitancy.

“Although influenza vaccine could be included as a ‘routine’ vaccine, in that it is recommended yearly, we hypothesized that parents view it differently from other childhood vaccines because each year it needs to be given again, its content and effectiveness vary, and it addresses a disease that is often perceived as minor, compared with other childhood diseases,” Dr. Kempe and colleagues wrote. Interventions to counter hesitancy have “a surprising lack of evidence,” and “more work needs to be done to develop methods that are practical and effective for convincing vaccine-hesitant parents to vaccinate.”
 

Logical next step

“From the pragmatic standpoint of improving immunization rates and disease control, determining the correct evidence-based messaging to counter these perceptions is the next logical step,” Annabelle de St. Maurice, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at University of California, Los Angeles, and Kathryn Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and director of the vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Communications should be focused on the burden of influenza in children, rebranding influenza vaccine as a ‘routine’ childhood immunization, reassurance on influenza vaccine safety, and discussion of the efficacy of influenza vaccine in preventing severe disease,” they wrote. “Even in the years when there is a poor match, the vaccine is impactful.”

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Two study authors disclosed financial ties to Sanofi Pasteur, with one also disclosing financial ties to Merck, for work related to vaccinations. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. de St. Maurice indicated that she had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Edwards disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH; consulting for Merck, Bionet, and IBM; and serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Sanofi, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Seqirus, Moderna, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3852.
 

The skin microbiome is similar between the first few weeks of life and 3-4 years of age, then increases in richness and diversity through age 10, while the skin microbiome of the mothers of the children whose microbiome was analyzed remained relatively constant over the same time period.

Darryl Leja, National Human Genome Research Institute

The findings come from what is believed to be the longest longitudinal study specific to the skin microbiome of infants and mothers.

“Even at 10 years, the skin microbiome does not look like an adult skin microbiome, based on composition of the ecosystem,” lead author Kimberly A. Capone, PhD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “The diversity of the microbiome in children’s skin is distinct to that of an adult’s skin. We all have the same bacteria present, but in children it is distributed differently because the bacteria set themselves up based on the nutrients and topography that they find on the skin. Since infant skin is unique to infants, so too is their microbiome when we compare it to adults. It’s been fascinating to observe these children grow and mature, and follow the skin microbiome along this same period.”

During five time points over a period of 10 years, Dr. Capone and her colleagues at the Skillman, N.J.–based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Experience Center, a research and development site, used 16s rRNA gene sequencing to evaluate the skin microbiome on the forearms and foreheads of 30 mothers and their 31 children. The study participants had Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV and the mean age of mothers was 37 years. “We used 16s rRNA gene sequencing for microbiome analysis at the beginning, as that was what was available 10 years ago,” said Dr. Capone, head of the microbiome platform for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health. “Since then, we continue to use 16s for continuity, but also collected additional swabs for deeper analysis later.”

She and her colleagues often draw samples from the forearm in baby skin clinical studies, “as the arm is a good site to collect relevant data on the body overall,” she explained. “We chose the forearm and forehead specifically here so we can make same body site comparisons to adult sample data which we took from the mothers on the same areas of their body.” Time point 1 was 3 months to 1 year, time point 2 was 2-3 years, time point 3 was 5-6 years, time point 4 was 7-8 years, and time point 5 was 9-10 years.

The researchers found that the skin of infants during the first few weeks of life was similar at age 3 and 4 years. “From that second time point on, we see significant increases in richness and diversity, richness being presence or absence of various bacterial species, and diversity being the relative abundance of those species,” Dr. Capone said. “What you’re basically seeing is that there are new organisms, i.e., richness, coming into the microbiome. We start to detect new ones. Over time, the ecosystem is expanding. It’s evolving because it’s not yet set up.” The evolving skin microbiome on children was dominated by Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. In addition, children had higher levels of Streptococcus, Moraxella, Granulicatella, Gemella and Veillonella, compared with their adult mothers. Adult skin was colonized predominantly by Propionibacterium/Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus.

“The skin microbiome also increased in diversity over time on the forearm, but not face, of the mothers,” Dr. Capone said. “Previous studies have shown how stable the adult skin microbiome is, so it’s intriguing to see the changes that we saw on the mothers in this study.”

The increase in skin microbiome diversity observed in the children is likely due to a variety of factors, she continued, including inherent growth and development, dietary changes, as well as exposure to various environments and other people. “The fact remains that diversity is increasing over time, as the ecosystem evolves,” she said. “Eventually, the skin microbiome will become ‘adultlike’ in puberty, when lipid production increases. This drives increases in Cutibacterium acnes, particularly on the face.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small size and the fact that some of the original subjects did not return for microbiome analysis at later time points. “We need larger cohort studies, additional deeper sequence data, metabolomics and transcriptomics to better understand the function of the skin microbiome over these various ages,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Consumer. Dr. Capone and her two coauthors are employees of the company.

[email protected]

The skin microbiome is similar between the first few weeks of life and 3-4 years of age, then increases in richness and diversity through age 10, while the skin microbiome of the mothers of the children whose microbiome was analyzed remained relatively constant over the same time period.

Darryl Leja, National Human Genome Research Institute

The findings come from what is believed to be the longest longitudinal study specific to the skin microbiome of infants and mothers.

“Even at 10 years, the skin microbiome does not look like an adult skin microbiome, based on composition of the ecosystem,” lead author Kimberly A. Capone, PhD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “The diversity of the microbiome in children’s skin is distinct to that of an adult’s skin. We all have the same bacteria present, but in children it is distributed differently because the bacteria set themselves up based on the nutrients and topography that they find on the skin. Since infant skin is unique to infants, so too is their microbiome when we compare it to adults. It’s been fascinating to observe these children grow and mature, and follow the skin microbiome along this same period.”

During five time points over a period of 10 years, Dr. Capone and her colleagues at the Skillman, N.J.–based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Experience Center, a research and development site, used 16s rRNA gene sequencing to evaluate the skin microbiome on the forearms and foreheads of 30 mothers and their 31 children. The study participants had Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV and the mean age of mothers was 37 years. “We used 16s rRNA gene sequencing for microbiome analysis at the beginning, as that was what was available 10 years ago,” said Dr. Capone, head of the microbiome platform for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health. “Since then, we continue to use 16s for continuity, but also collected additional swabs for deeper analysis later.”

She and her colleagues often draw samples from the forearm in baby skin clinical studies, “as the arm is a good site to collect relevant data on the body overall,” she explained. “We chose the forearm and forehead specifically here so we can make same body site comparisons to adult sample data which we took from the mothers on the same areas of their body.” Time point 1 was 3 months to 1 year, time point 2 was 2-3 years, time point 3 was 5-6 years, time point 4 was 7-8 years, and time point 5 was 9-10 years.

The researchers found that the skin of infants during the first few weeks of life was similar at age 3 and 4 years. “From that second time point on, we see significant increases in richness and diversity, richness being presence or absence of various bacterial species, and diversity being the relative abundance of those species,” Dr. Capone said. “What you’re basically seeing is that there are new organisms, i.e., richness, coming into the microbiome. We start to detect new ones. Over time, the ecosystem is expanding. It’s evolving because it’s not yet set up.” The evolving skin microbiome on children was dominated by Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. In addition, children had higher levels of Streptococcus, Moraxella, Granulicatella, Gemella and Veillonella, compared with their adult mothers. Adult skin was colonized predominantly by Propionibacterium/Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus.

“The skin microbiome also increased in diversity over time on the forearm, but not face, of the mothers,” Dr. Capone said. “Previous studies have shown how stable the adult skin microbiome is, so it’s intriguing to see the changes that we saw on the mothers in this study.”

The increase in skin microbiome diversity observed in the children is likely due to a variety of factors, she continued, including inherent growth and development, dietary changes, as well as exposure to various environments and other people. “The fact remains that diversity is increasing over time, as the ecosystem evolves,” she said. “Eventually, the skin microbiome will become ‘adultlike’ in puberty, when lipid production increases. This drives increases in Cutibacterium acnes, particularly on the face.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small size and the fact that some of the original subjects did not return for microbiome analysis at later time points. “We need larger cohort studies, additional deeper sequence data, metabolomics and transcriptomics to better understand the function of the skin microbiome over these various ages,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Consumer. Dr. Capone and her two coauthors are employees of the company.

[email protected]

The skin microbiome is similar between the first few weeks of life and 3-4 years of age, then increases in richness and diversity through age 10, while the skin microbiome of the mothers of the children whose microbiome was analyzed remained relatively constant over the same time period.

Darryl Leja, National Human Genome Research Institute

The findings come from what is believed to be the longest longitudinal study specific to the skin microbiome of infants and mothers.

“Even at 10 years, the skin microbiome does not look like an adult skin microbiome, based on composition of the ecosystem,” lead author Kimberly A. Capone, PhD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “The diversity of the microbiome in children’s skin is distinct to that of an adult’s skin. We all have the same bacteria present, but in children it is distributed differently because the bacteria set themselves up based on the nutrients and topography that they find on the skin. Since infant skin is unique to infants, so too is their microbiome when we compare it to adults. It’s been fascinating to observe these children grow and mature, and follow the skin microbiome along this same period.”

During five time points over a period of 10 years, Dr. Capone and her colleagues at the Skillman, N.J.–based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Experience Center, a research and development site, used 16s rRNA gene sequencing to evaluate the skin microbiome on the forearms and foreheads of 30 mothers and their 31 children. The study participants had Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV and the mean age of mothers was 37 years. “We used 16s rRNA gene sequencing for microbiome analysis at the beginning, as that was what was available 10 years ago,” said Dr. Capone, head of the microbiome platform for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health. “Since then, we continue to use 16s for continuity, but also collected additional swabs for deeper analysis later.”

She and her colleagues often draw samples from the forearm in baby skin clinical studies, “as the arm is a good site to collect relevant data on the body overall,” she explained. “We chose the forearm and forehead specifically here so we can make same body site comparisons to adult sample data which we took from the mothers on the same areas of their body.” Time point 1 was 3 months to 1 year, time point 2 was 2-3 years, time point 3 was 5-6 years, time point 4 was 7-8 years, and time point 5 was 9-10 years.

The researchers found that the skin of infants during the first few weeks of life was similar at age 3 and 4 years. “From that second time point on, we see significant increases in richness and diversity, richness being presence or absence of various bacterial species, and diversity being the relative abundance of those species,” Dr. Capone said. “What you’re basically seeing is that there are new organisms, i.e., richness, coming into the microbiome. We start to detect new ones. Over time, the ecosystem is expanding. It’s evolving because it’s not yet set up.” The evolving skin microbiome on children was dominated by Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. In addition, children had higher levels of Streptococcus, Moraxella, Granulicatella, Gemella and Veillonella, compared with their adult mothers. Adult skin was colonized predominantly by Propionibacterium/Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus.

“The skin microbiome also increased in diversity over time on the forearm, but not face, of the mothers,” Dr. Capone said. “Previous studies have shown how stable the adult skin microbiome is, so it’s intriguing to see the changes that we saw on the mothers in this study.”

The increase in skin microbiome diversity observed in the children is likely due to a variety of factors, she continued, including inherent growth and development, dietary changes, as well as exposure to various environments and other people. “The fact remains that diversity is increasing over time, as the ecosystem evolves,” she said. “Eventually, the skin microbiome will become ‘adultlike’ in puberty, when lipid production increases. This drives increases in Cutibacterium acnes, particularly on the face.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small size and the fact that some of the original subjects did not return for microbiome analysis at later time points. “We need larger cohort studies, additional deeper sequence data, metabolomics and transcriptomics to better understand the function of the skin microbiome over these various ages,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Consumer. Dr. Capone and her two coauthors are employees of the company.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.