MDedge Rheumatology

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Patients returning slowly to primary care

Patients are beginning to return for outpatient visits. These visits dropped 60% from prepandemic levels in early April, but have rebounded to about 30% less than baseline, on average, according to data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia. For primary care in particular, practices are seeing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March. But even with visits rebounding, primary care faces financial challenges. “Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.” READ MORE.
 

Are the eyes at risk from COVID-19?

Recently, Joseph Fair, PhD, an NBC News contributor, suggested that he may have become ill with COVID-19 because of a lack of eye protection on an airplane. From his hospital bed in New Orleans, he told the network that he had flown on a crowded plane where flight attendants weren’t wearing masks. He wore a mask and gloves, but no eye protection. “My best guess,” he told the interviewer, “was that it came through the eye route.” But experts still aren’t sure if infection through the eyes is possible. “I don’t think we can answer that question with 100% confidence at this time,” said H. Nida Sen, MD, director of the uveitis clinic at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., and a clinical investigator who is studying the effects of COVID-19 on the eye. But, she says, “I think it is biologically plausible.” READ MORE.

Social distancing shows harm in older adults

As physical distancing continues to be necessary to maintain the health of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts are raising the alarm about the harms of also being socially distant. Studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly, according to Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers. “A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said. READ MORE.

Americans are split on COVID-19 vaccination

As researchers race to produce a safe and effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, about half of Americans report they would get the vaccine if it were available. A recent poll, conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, found that 31% of respondents weren’t sure if they’d get a vaccine, and 20% said they’d refuse to get one. The poll was conducted May 14-18 and released May 27. Among respondents who said they don’t plan to get vaccinated, 70% said they’re concerned about side effects. Another 42% are worried about getting the coronavirus from the vaccine. READ MORE.

Biologic approved for atopic dermatitis

The Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. This is the first biologic approved for atopic dermatitis in this age group. The new indication is for children whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Patients returning slowly to primary care

Patients are beginning to return for outpatient visits. These visits dropped 60% from prepandemic levels in early April, but have rebounded to about 30% less than baseline, on average, according to data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia. For primary care in particular, practices are seeing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March. But even with visits rebounding, primary care faces financial challenges. “Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.” READ MORE.
 

Are the eyes at risk from COVID-19?

Recently, Joseph Fair, PhD, an NBC News contributor, suggested that he may have become ill with COVID-19 because of a lack of eye protection on an airplane. From his hospital bed in New Orleans, he told the network that he had flown on a crowded plane where flight attendants weren’t wearing masks. He wore a mask and gloves, but no eye protection. “My best guess,” he told the interviewer, “was that it came through the eye route.” But experts still aren’t sure if infection through the eyes is possible. “I don’t think we can answer that question with 100% confidence at this time,” said H. Nida Sen, MD, director of the uveitis clinic at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., and a clinical investigator who is studying the effects of COVID-19 on the eye. But, she says, “I think it is biologically plausible.” READ MORE.

Social distancing shows harm in older adults

As physical distancing continues to be necessary to maintain the health of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts are raising the alarm about the harms of also being socially distant. Studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly, according to Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers. “A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said. READ MORE.

Americans are split on COVID-19 vaccination

As researchers race to produce a safe and effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, about half of Americans report they would get the vaccine if it were available. A recent poll, conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, found that 31% of respondents weren’t sure if they’d get a vaccine, and 20% said they’d refuse to get one. The poll was conducted May 14-18 and released May 27. Among respondents who said they don’t plan to get vaccinated, 70% said they’re concerned about side effects. Another 42% are worried about getting the coronavirus from the vaccine. READ MORE.

Biologic approved for atopic dermatitis

The Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. This is the first biologic approved for atopic dermatitis in this age group. The new indication is for children whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Patients returning slowly to primary care

Patients are beginning to return for outpatient visits. These visits dropped 60% from prepandemic levels in early April, but have rebounded to about 30% less than baseline, on average, according to data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia. For primary care in particular, practices are seeing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March. But even with visits rebounding, primary care faces financial challenges. “Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.” READ MORE.
 

Are the eyes at risk from COVID-19?

Recently, Joseph Fair, PhD, an NBC News contributor, suggested that he may have become ill with COVID-19 because of a lack of eye protection on an airplane. From his hospital bed in New Orleans, he told the network that he had flown on a crowded plane where flight attendants weren’t wearing masks. He wore a mask and gloves, but no eye protection. “My best guess,” he told the interviewer, “was that it came through the eye route.” But experts still aren’t sure if infection through the eyes is possible. “I don’t think we can answer that question with 100% confidence at this time,” said H. Nida Sen, MD, director of the uveitis clinic at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., and a clinical investigator who is studying the effects of COVID-19 on the eye. But, she says, “I think it is biologically plausible.” READ MORE.

Social distancing shows harm in older adults

As physical distancing continues to be necessary to maintain the health of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts are raising the alarm about the harms of also being socially distant. Studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly, according to Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers. “A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said. READ MORE.

Americans are split on COVID-19 vaccination

As researchers race to produce a safe and effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, about half of Americans report they would get the vaccine if it were available. A recent poll, conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, found that 31% of respondents weren’t sure if they’d get a vaccine, and 20% said they’d refuse to get one. The poll was conducted May 14-18 and released May 27. Among respondents who said they don’t plan to get vaccinated, 70% said they’re concerned about side effects. Another 42% are worried about getting the coronavirus from the vaccine. READ MORE.

Biologic approved for atopic dermatitis

The Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. This is the first biologic approved for atopic dermatitis in this age group. The new indication is for children whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Pediatric dermatologists overwhelmingly say that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected how they prescribe and monitor immunosuppressive medications for inflammatory skin diseases, according to a task force survey designed to offer guidance to specialists and nonspecialists faced with tough choices about risks.

Some 87% reported that they were reducing the frequency of lab monitoring for some medications, while more than half said they had reached out to patients and their families to discuss the implications of continuing or stopping a drug.

Virtually all – 97% – said that the COVID-19 crisis had affected their decision to initiate immunosuppressive medications, with 84% saying the decision depended on a patient’s risk factors for contracting COVID-19 infection, and also the potential consequences of infection while treated, compared with the risks of not optimally treating the skin condition.

To develop a consensus-based guidance for clinicians, published online April 22 in Pediatric Dermatology, Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, assembled a task force of pediatric dermatologists at academic institutions (the Pediatric Dermatology COVID-19 Response Task Force). Together with Sean Reynolds, MD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at UCSF and colleagues, they issued a survey to the 37 members of the task force with questions on how the pandemic has affected their prescribing decisions and certain therapies specifically. All the recipients responded.

The dermatologists were asked about conventional systemic and biologic medications. Most felt confident in continuing biologics, with 78% saying they would keep patients with no signs of COVID-19 exposure or infection on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. More than 90% of respondents said they would continue patients on dupilumab, as well as anti–interleukin (IL)–17, anti–IL-12/23, and anti–IL-23 therapies.

Responses varied more on approaches to the nonbiologic treatments. Fewer than half (46%) said they would continue patients without apparent COVID-19 exposure on systemic steroids, with another 46% saying it depended on the clinical context.

For other systemic therapies, respondents were more likely to want to continue their patients with no signs or symptoms of COVID-19 on methotrexate and apremilast (78% and 83%, respectively) than others (mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and JAK inhibitors), which saw between 50% and 60% support in the survey.

Patients on any immunosuppressive medications with likely exposure to COVID-19 or who test positive for the virus should be temporarily taken off their medications, the majority concurred. Exceptions were for systemic steroids, which must be tapered. And a significant minority of the dermatologists said that they would continue apremilast or dupilumab (24% and 16%, respectively) in the event of a confirmed COVID-19 infection.

In an interview, Dr. Cordoro commented that, even in normal times, most systemic or biological immunosuppressive treatments are used off-label by pediatric dermatologists. “There’s no way this could have been an evidence-based document, as we didn’t have the data to drive this. Many of the medications have been tested in children but not necessarily for dermatologic indications; some are chemotherapy agents or drugs used in rheumatologic diseases.”

The COVID-19 pandemic complicated an already difficult decision-making process, she said.

The researchers cautioned against attempting to make decisions about medications based on data on other infections from clinical trials. “Infection data from standard infections that were identified and watched for in clinical trials really still has no bearing on COVID-19 because it’s such a different virus,” Dr. Cordoro said.

And while some immunosuppressive medications could potentially attenuate a SARS-CoV-2–induced cytokine storm, “we certainly don’t assume this is necessarily going to help.”

The authors advised that physicians anxious about initiating an immunosuppressive treatment should take into consideration whether early intervention could “prevent permanent physical impairment or disfigurement” in diseases such as erythrodermic pustular psoriasis or rapidly progressive linear morphea.

Other diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, “may be acceptably, though not optimally, managed with topical and other home-based therapeutic options” during the pandemic, they wrote.

Dr. Cordoro commented that, given how fast new findings are emerging from the pandemic, the guidance on medications could change. “We will know so much more 3 months from now,” she said. And while there are no formal plans to reissue the survey, “we’re maintaining communication and will have some kind of follow up” with the academic dermatologists.

“If we recognize any signals that are counter to what we say in this work we will immediately let people know,” she said.

The researchers received no outside funding for their study. Of the study’s 24 coauthors, nine disclosed financial relationships with industry.

SOURCE: Add the first auSOURCE: Reynolds et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1111/pde.14202.

Pediatric dermatologists overwhelmingly say that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected how they prescribe and monitor immunosuppressive medications for inflammatory skin diseases, according to a task force survey designed to offer guidance to specialists and nonspecialists faced with tough choices about risks.

Some 87% reported that they were reducing the frequency of lab monitoring for some medications, while more than half said they had reached out to patients and their families to discuss the implications of continuing or stopping a drug.

Virtually all – 97% – said that the COVID-19 crisis had affected their decision to initiate immunosuppressive medications, with 84% saying the decision depended on a patient’s risk factors for contracting COVID-19 infection, and also the potential consequences of infection while treated, compared with the risks of not optimally treating the skin condition.

To develop a consensus-based guidance for clinicians, published online April 22 in Pediatric Dermatology, Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, assembled a task force of pediatric dermatologists at academic institutions (the Pediatric Dermatology COVID-19 Response Task Force). Together with Sean Reynolds, MD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at UCSF and colleagues, they issued a survey to the 37 members of the task force with questions on how the pandemic has affected their prescribing decisions and certain therapies specifically. All the recipients responded.

The dermatologists were asked about conventional systemic and biologic medications. Most felt confident in continuing biologics, with 78% saying they would keep patients with no signs of COVID-19 exposure or infection on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. More than 90% of respondents said they would continue patients on dupilumab, as well as anti–interleukin (IL)–17, anti–IL-12/23, and anti–IL-23 therapies.

Responses varied more on approaches to the nonbiologic treatments. Fewer than half (46%) said they would continue patients without apparent COVID-19 exposure on systemic steroids, with another 46% saying it depended on the clinical context.

For other systemic therapies, respondents were more likely to want to continue their patients with no signs or symptoms of COVID-19 on methotrexate and apremilast (78% and 83%, respectively) than others (mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and JAK inhibitors), which saw between 50% and 60% support in the survey.

Patients on any immunosuppressive medications with likely exposure to COVID-19 or who test positive for the virus should be temporarily taken off their medications, the majority concurred. Exceptions were for systemic steroids, which must be tapered. And a significant minority of the dermatologists said that they would continue apremilast or dupilumab (24% and 16%, respectively) in the event of a confirmed COVID-19 infection.

In an interview, Dr. Cordoro commented that, even in normal times, most systemic or biological immunosuppressive treatments are used off-label by pediatric dermatologists. “There’s no way this could have been an evidence-based document, as we didn’t have the data to drive this. Many of the medications have been tested in children but not necessarily for dermatologic indications; some are chemotherapy agents or drugs used in rheumatologic diseases.”

The COVID-19 pandemic complicated an already difficult decision-making process, she said.

The researchers cautioned against attempting to make decisions about medications based on data on other infections from clinical trials. “Infection data from standard infections that were identified and watched for in clinical trials really still has no bearing on COVID-19 because it’s such a different virus,” Dr. Cordoro said.

And while some immunosuppressive medications could potentially attenuate a SARS-CoV-2–induced cytokine storm, “we certainly don’t assume this is necessarily going to help.”

The authors advised that physicians anxious about initiating an immunosuppressive treatment should take into consideration whether early intervention could “prevent permanent physical impairment or disfigurement” in diseases such as erythrodermic pustular psoriasis or rapidly progressive linear morphea.

Other diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, “may be acceptably, though not optimally, managed with topical and other home-based therapeutic options” during the pandemic, they wrote.

Dr. Cordoro commented that, given how fast new findings are emerging from the pandemic, the guidance on medications could change. “We will know so much more 3 months from now,” she said. And while there are no formal plans to reissue the survey, “we’re maintaining communication and will have some kind of follow up” with the academic dermatologists.

“If we recognize any signals that are counter to what we say in this work we will immediately let people know,” she said.

The researchers received no outside funding for their study. Of the study’s 24 coauthors, nine disclosed financial relationships with industry.

SOURCE: Add the first auSOURCE: Reynolds et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1111/pde.14202.

Pediatric dermatologists overwhelmingly say that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected how they prescribe and monitor immunosuppressive medications for inflammatory skin diseases, according to a task force survey designed to offer guidance to specialists and nonspecialists faced with tough choices about risks.

Some 87% reported that they were reducing the frequency of lab monitoring for some medications, while more than half said they had reached out to patients and their families to discuss the implications of continuing or stopping a drug.

Virtually all – 97% – said that the COVID-19 crisis had affected their decision to initiate immunosuppressive medications, with 84% saying the decision depended on a patient’s risk factors for contracting COVID-19 infection, and also the potential consequences of infection while treated, compared with the risks of not optimally treating the skin condition.

To develop a consensus-based guidance for clinicians, published online April 22 in Pediatric Dermatology, Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, assembled a task force of pediatric dermatologists at academic institutions (the Pediatric Dermatology COVID-19 Response Task Force). Together with Sean Reynolds, MD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at UCSF and colleagues, they issued a survey to the 37 members of the task force with questions on how the pandemic has affected their prescribing decisions and certain therapies specifically. All the recipients responded.

The dermatologists were asked about conventional systemic and biologic medications. Most felt confident in continuing biologics, with 78% saying they would keep patients with no signs of COVID-19 exposure or infection on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. More than 90% of respondents said they would continue patients on dupilumab, as well as anti–interleukin (IL)–17, anti–IL-12/23, and anti–IL-23 therapies.

Responses varied more on approaches to the nonbiologic treatments. Fewer than half (46%) said they would continue patients without apparent COVID-19 exposure on systemic steroids, with another 46% saying it depended on the clinical context.

For other systemic therapies, respondents were more likely to want to continue their patients with no signs or symptoms of COVID-19 on methotrexate and apremilast (78% and 83%, respectively) than others (mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and JAK inhibitors), which saw between 50% and 60% support in the survey.

Patients on any immunosuppressive medications with likely exposure to COVID-19 or who test positive for the virus should be temporarily taken off their medications, the majority concurred. Exceptions were for systemic steroids, which must be tapered. And a significant minority of the dermatologists said that they would continue apremilast or dupilumab (24% and 16%, respectively) in the event of a confirmed COVID-19 infection.

In an interview, Dr. Cordoro commented that, even in normal times, most systemic or biological immunosuppressive treatments are used off-label by pediatric dermatologists. “There’s no way this could have been an evidence-based document, as we didn’t have the data to drive this. Many of the medications have been tested in children but not necessarily for dermatologic indications; some are chemotherapy agents or drugs used in rheumatologic diseases.”

The COVID-19 pandemic complicated an already difficult decision-making process, she said.

The researchers cautioned against attempting to make decisions about medications based on data on other infections from clinical trials. “Infection data from standard infections that were identified and watched for in clinical trials really still has no bearing on COVID-19 because it’s such a different virus,” Dr. Cordoro said.

And while some immunosuppressive medications could potentially attenuate a SARS-CoV-2–induced cytokine storm, “we certainly don’t assume this is necessarily going to help.”

The authors advised that physicians anxious about initiating an immunosuppressive treatment should take into consideration whether early intervention could “prevent permanent physical impairment or disfigurement” in diseases such as erythrodermic pustular psoriasis or rapidly progressive linear morphea.

Other diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, “may be acceptably, though not optimally, managed with topical and other home-based therapeutic options” during the pandemic, they wrote.

Dr. Cordoro commented that, given how fast new findings are emerging from the pandemic, the guidance on medications could change. “We will know so much more 3 months from now,” she said. And while there are no formal plans to reissue the survey, “we’re maintaining communication and will have some kind of follow up” with the academic dermatologists.

“If we recognize any signals that are counter to what we say in this work we will immediately let people know,” she said.

The researchers received no outside funding for their study. Of the study’s 24 coauthors, nine disclosed financial relationships with industry.

SOURCE: Add the first auSOURCE: Reynolds et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1111/pde.14202.

About half of Americans say they would get a COVID-19 vaccine if one is available, according to the Associated Press.

The poll, conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, also found that 31% said they weren’t sure if they’d get a vaccine, and 20% said they’d refuse to get one. The poll was conducted May 14-18 and released May 27.

A massive national and international effort is underway to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus. According to the poll, 20% of Americans believe a vaccine will be available before the end of 2020. Another 61% think it will arrive in 2021, and 17% say it will take longer.

“It’s always better to under-promise and over-deliver,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told the AP.

Americans over age 60 were more likely to say they’ll get a coronavirus vaccine when it’s available. Those who worry that they or someone in their household could become infected with the virus were also more likely to say they’ll get a vaccine. However, Black Americans were more likely than were Hispanic or white responders to say that they don’t plan to get a vaccine.

Among those who plan to get a vaccine, 93% said they want to protect themselves, and 88% said they want to protect their family. About 72% said “life won’t go back to normal until most people are vaccinated,” and 33% said they have a chronic health condition such as asthma or diabetes and believe it’s important to receive a vaccine.

Among those who don’t plan to get a vaccine, 70% said they’re concerned about side effects. Another 42% are worried about getting the coronavirus from the vaccine. Others say they’re not concerned about getting seriously ill from the coronavirus, they don’t think vaccines work well, the COVID-19 outbreak isn’t serious, or they don’t like needles.

The National Institutes of Health says that safety is the top priority and is creating a plan to test the vaccine in thousands of people for safety and efficacy in coming months, according to the AP.

“I would not want people to think that we’re cutting corners because that would be a big mistake,” NIH director Francis Collins, MD, told AP earlier this month. “I think this is an effort to try to achieve efficiencies but not to sacrifice rigor.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

About half of Americans say they would get a COVID-19 vaccine if one is available, according to the Associated Press.

The poll, conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, also found that 31% said they weren’t sure if they’d get a vaccine, and 20% said they’d refuse to get one. The poll was conducted May 14-18 and released May 27.

A massive national and international effort is underway to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus. According to the poll, 20% of Americans believe a vaccine will be available before the end of 2020. Another 61% think it will arrive in 2021, and 17% say it will take longer.

“It’s always better to under-promise and over-deliver,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told the AP.

Americans over age 60 were more likely to say they’ll get a coronavirus vaccine when it’s available. Those who worry that they or someone in their household could become infected with the virus were also more likely to say they’ll get a vaccine. However, Black Americans were more likely than were Hispanic or white responders to say that they don’t plan to get a vaccine.

Among those who plan to get a vaccine, 93% said they want to protect themselves, and 88% said they want to protect their family. About 72% said “life won’t go back to normal until most people are vaccinated,” and 33% said they have a chronic health condition such as asthma or diabetes and believe it’s important to receive a vaccine.

Among those who don’t plan to get a vaccine, 70% said they’re concerned about side effects. Another 42% are worried about getting the coronavirus from the vaccine. Others say they’re not concerned about getting seriously ill from the coronavirus, they don’t think vaccines work well, the COVID-19 outbreak isn’t serious, or they don’t like needles.

The National Institutes of Health says that safety is the top priority and is creating a plan to test the vaccine in thousands of people for safety and efficacy in coming months, according to the AP.

“I would not want people to think that we’re cutting corners because that would be a big mistake,” NIH director Francis Collins, MD, told AP earlier this month. “I think this is an effort to try to achieve efficiencies but not to sacrifice rigor.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

About half of Americans say they would get a COVID-19 vaccine if one is available, according to the Associated Press.

The poll, conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, also found that 31% said they weren’t sure if they’d get a vaccine, and 20% said they’d refuse to get one. The poll was conducted May 14-18 and released May 27.

A massive national and international effort is underway to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus. According to the poll, 20% of Americans believe a vaccine will be available before the end of 2020. Another 61% think it will arrive in 2021, and 17% say it will take longer.

“It’s always better to under-promise and over-deliver,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told the AP.

Americans over age 60 were more likely to say they’ll get a coronavirus vaccine when it’s available. Those who worry that they or someone in their household could become infected with the virus were also more likely to say they’ll get a vaccine. However, Black Americans were more likely than were Hispanic or white responders to say that they don’t plan to get a vaccine.

Among those who plan to get a vaccine, 93% said they want to protect themselves, and 88% said they want to protect their family. About 72% said “life won’t go back to normal until most people are vaccinated,” and 33% said they have a chronic health condition such as asthma or diabetes and believe it’s important to receive a vaccine.

Among those who don’t plan to get a vaccine, 70% said they’re concerned about side effects. Another 42% are worried about getting the coronavirus from the vaccine. Others say they’re not concerned about getting seriously ill from the coronavirus, they don’t think vaccines work well, the COVID-19 outbreak isn’t serious, or they don’t like needles.

The National Institutes of Health says that safety is the top priority and is creating a plan to test the vaccine in thousands of people for safety and efficacy in coming months, according to the AP.

“I would not want people to think that we’re cutting corners because that would be a big mistake,” NIH director Francis Collins, MD, told AP earlier this month. “I think this is an effort to try to achieve efficiencies but not to sacrifice rigor.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Roger R., MD, a primary care physician from Philadelphia, set up a telemedicine appointment with a 24-year-old female patient who was experiencing headaches and was worried she might have COVID-19.

Photodisc/Thinkstock

During the televisit, Dr. R. noticed that “Tonya” (not her real name) had a purplish bruise under her right eye. When asked how she got the bruise, Tonya said she had bumped into a dresser. The physician suspected abuse. He then heard a man’s voice in the background and thought it might belong to the abuser. “Is this a good time for you to talk?” he asked Tonya.

Tonya hesitated.

“When might be a better time?”

Tonya suggested an alternate time, and the physician called her then. During the visit, she shared that her fiancé, a car salesman who was also sheltering at home, was punching her.

“He always had a bad temper. Once he shoved me, but he’s never hit me before. And when he was upset, we used to go out to eat and he calmed down. Now, we’re stuck inside, we can’t even get away from each other to go to work, and he’s getting scary,” she told the doctor.

The physician asked if she would like to be connected with a domestic violence counselor. When Tonya agreed, he called Jessica DuBois Palardy, a licensed social worker and the program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, a Philadelphia-based collaborative project of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Lutheran Settlement House’s Bilingual Domestic Violence Program.
 

A ‘horrifying’ trend

Tonya’s story is not unique. A United Nations report shows that there has been a “horrifying global surge in domestic violence” linked to “lockdowns imposed by the governments responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The United States is no exception – 2,345 calls were placed to the National Domestic Violence Hotline during March 16–April 6, 2020.

Carole Warshaw, MD, director of the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health in Chicago, said, “We know that intimate partner violence is increasing among people sheltering at home, and that abuse has become more severe.”

Even in nonabusive situations, being confined together at close quarters, often amid family stress and financial hardship, can be wearing, and tempers can flare. In an abusive relationship, “the main contributor to violence during shelter-in-place restrictions is that the isolation gives abusers more opportunities for controlling their partners, who have fewer options for accessing safety and support,” Dr. Warshaw said.

It is critical to “approach every clinical encounter knowing that domestic violence may be at play,” she emphasized.
 

Physicians might be the most important lifeline

Physicians are already facing myriad COVID-19–related challenges, and having another concern to keep in mind may be daunting.

“We’re in uncharted territory and we’re all trying to figure out how to navigate this time, how to practice medicine via phone and video conferences, and how to deal with the financial repercussions of the pandemic – not to mention concern for the health of our families,” said Peter F. Cronholm, MD, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “So maintaining vigilance is often difficult. Nevertheless, it’s important not to let this critical issue fall to the wayside.”

Marcella Nyachogo, MSW, a licensed social worker and assistant director of the Bilingual Domestic Violence Program, noted that physicians and other health care providers “may be the only people the patient interacts with, since the abuser may cut the survivor off from family and friends. And because the survivor isn’t leaving the house, he or she doesn’t have an opportunity to interact with coworkers or others – which makes health care providers the most important lifeline.”
 

COVID-19 as a weapon of abuse

Carey Watson, MD, regional medical director of the Family Violence Prevention Program at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, points to a disturbing trend in COVID-19–related abuse.

“Unfortunately, I’m hearing more and more accounts of how the illness itself can be one more weapon in the abuser’s arsenal,” she said.

Experts say that increasingly, abusers are claiming that their partner, who is employed in an “essential” job outside the home, is carrying the virus, and they are using this as a means of control and manipulation.

This is especially true of abusive partners of health care providers, Dr. Watson noted. She recounted the story of a divorced nurse whose husband did not allow her to have contact with their children, allegedly out of concern that she might have COVID-19, and would threaten her with a gun when she protested.

“It is important to keep this abusive tactic in mind, not only when dealing with patients but also with fellow physicians and health care professionals, and check in to see if everything is okay – especially if they seem particularly stressed out or distant,” Dr. Watson recommended.

Trust your clinical gut

How can you tell if your patients might be experiencing abuse when you’re not seeing them in person?

Pay attention to subtle signals and “trust your clinical gut when something doesn’t feel right,” Ms. Nyachogo advised.

If a patient’s demeanor is jittery or anxious or if someone next to him or her is answering all the questions or interrupting the visit, these could be red flags.

Dr. Cronholm added that telemedicine visits offer a “rare window into a patient’s home life that would not be available in an office visit.” For example, a house in disarray, the presence of broken objects, or the presence of another person hovering in the background suggests the need for further exploration.

The starting point of screening and intervention is to recognize that any domestic violence situation is potentially explosive. “The main thing for all providers to keep in mind is ‘first, do no harm,’ ” Ms. Nyachogo emphasized.

“Our agency has been working for years with medical professionals in how to screen and connect folks with help most effectively and safely, and – although the specific situations posed by COVID are new – the overall approach is the same, which is to proceed with caution in how you approach the subject and how you make referrals,” she said.

Begin by asking if it is a convenient time to talk.

“This question takes the onus off the patient, who may not know how to communicate that she has no privacy or is in the middle of an argument,” explained Elsa Swenson, program manager of Home Free community program, which serves individuals experiencing domestic violence. The program is part of Minnesota-based Missions Inc. Programs, which serves those experiencing domestic abuse and chemical dependency.

If the patient indicates that it isn’t a convenient time to talk, find out when would be a better time. “This might be difficult for busy physicians and may not be what they’re accustomed to when calling a patient at home, but the patient’s circumstances are unknown to you, so it’s essential to organize around their ability to talk,” Ms. Swenson noted.
 

‘Are you alone?’

Another important piece of information is whether the patient has privacy – which can be tricky if the abuser is standing right there.

“You don’t want to tip the abuser off to your concerns, so you need to frame the question in a neutral way,” Dr. Watson advised.

For example, you might say that HIPAA laws require that you conduct the consultation with no one else present, and find out if there is a location in the house where the patient can have privacy.

It might be easier to talk on the phone than via video, suggests Florence Remes, a New Jersey–based licensed social worker who specializes in domestic violence. Going into another room and playing music or turning on the television might make it less obvious that a call is taking place, and the abuser would be less likely to overhear the caller’s conversation.

Dr. Watson suggested that questions about abuse might be included with other questions and asked in a simple yes/no format. “I’d like to ask you some standard questions I’m asking everyone during the pandemic. Do you have a cough or fever? Do you have any other physical symptoms? Do you have access to hand sanitizer? How is your sleep? Are you experiencing stress? Do you feel safe at home?”

The abuser, if present, will only hear the patient’s “yes” or “no” without knowing the question. If the patient indicates that she is being abused but is unable to talk, a later time can be arranged to further explore the issue.
 

Technology is a double-edged sword

Modern technologies have been a great boon to patients and physicians during this time of social distancing, allowing ongoing contact and health care when it would not otherwise have been possible. On the other hand, technology is fraught with potential dangers that can jeopardize the patient’s safety and compromise privacy.

Ms. Remes recounted the story of “Susan,” a client with whom she had been conducting teletherapy visits using an approved HIPAA-compliant telemedicine forum. Susan was working from home because of shelter-in-place restrictions. Her husband had been abusive, and Susan was concerned he might be “sabotaging” the household’s WiFi to isolate her from outside sources of support.

At the recommendation of Ms. Remes, Susan continued sessions either via phone calls or by using the WhatsApp program on her cellphone. Many of the requirements governing HIPAA privacy regulations have been temporarily relaxed, and clinicians can use non–encrypted forms of transmission, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, or Skype, if no other platform is available.

But even cellphones have risks, Dr. Warshaw noted. The patient’s abuser might track texts or look at call logs – especially on unsecured platforms. It’s advisable to ask patients about who has access to their phone and computer and discuss ways to increase security.
 

Follow the patient’s lead

Proceed slowly and start with nonthreatening questions, Ms. Palardy advised. “I notice you have some injuries; can you tell me how you got them? Did someone hurt you? What does your relationship look like when you argue? Is there anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe?”

Emphasizing that you are asking these questions because of care and concern is reassuring and helps patients to feel they are not alone, Ms. Nyachogo pointed out.

“As your doctor, I’m worried about your health and (if relevant) your children’s safety. I can help connect you with counseling and support, legal resources, and a shelter, and everything is free and confidential. Would you be interested?” she said.

If the client acknowledges abuse, “follow their lead, but don’t push too hard,” Ms. Nyachogo warned.

“It is the client’s choice whether or not to take action,” she noted. “I’ve met survivors who said that it wasn’t until a doctor or nurse expressed concern about bruises that it even occurred to them that they were being abused. Some lied to the doctor about how they got hurt – but the question planted a seed, even though it might have taken years to follow up on the referral,” she said.
 

What if the patient doesn’t want to get help?

If a patient is not ready to seek help, you can create a home-safety plan. This might include setting follow-up times. If you don’t hear from him or her, you should then call the police. Or you might create a “code word,” such as “apple pie.” If the patient uses that word during a session, you know her life is in danger, Ms. Remes suggested.

Providing written information about how to get help is important but can be problematic if the abuser finds it.

Ms. Nyachogo recommends e-mailing follow-up materials that cover a variety of topics, such as keeping safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, relaxation, healthy eating, getting exercise while homebound, activities for children, and suggestions for hotlines and other resources if one is feeling suicidal or unsafe.

“If you present these as your ‘standard’ follow-up materials, the abuser is less likely to become suspicious,” Ms. Nyachogo noted.
 

Resources are available during COVID-19

All of the experts emphasize that resources for victims of domestic violence remain available during the COVID-19 pandemic, although some shelters may be operating at reduced capacity. Some agencies are finding alternatives to group shelters, such as hotels or Airbnb, which carry less risk of catching COVID-19.

Referring a patient to domestic violence resources is a delicate process. “You don’t want referring the patient for help to further endanger their life,” Ms. Nyachogo said.

The more you can take the burden off the patient, the better. If she is interested in getting help, you can call a domestic violence counselor or advocate while she is on the phone.

“This type of ‘warm handoff’ is what Tonya’s physician did,” Ms. Palardy recounted.

A warm handoff requires that physicians be familiar with domestic violence resources, Dr. Warshaw emphasized.

“Don’t wait until you are working with someone who needs help to find out where to refer them. Take the time to proactively research local agencies specializing in domestic violence and have their phone numbers on hand, so you can offer resources immediately if the person is interested,” she advised. The National Domestic Violence Hotline can also assist with safety planning and access to local resources.
 

‘Thinking on your feet’ critical for physicians

Addressing domestic violence during this unprecedented time requires “thinking on your feet” about novel forms of detection and intervention, Dr. Watson said. This involves a combination of clinical acumen, creativity, and finely honed intuition.

Ms. Nyachogo added, “Keeping an eye on domestic violence can feel like an extra burden, but don’t forget that it is lifesaving work.”
 

Resources

National Domestic Violence Hotline

• 800-799-SAFE (7233)
• The patient can also text LOVEIS to 22522.

National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health

• Provides resources for health care, mental health, and substance use treatment and recovery support providers on responding to domestic violence and other trauma.
• Provides resources for professionals and patients regarding access to substance use and mental health care during the COVID-1 pandemic.
• Provides support for parents, caregivers, and children during the pandemic.
• Provides resources for advocates serving families affected by domestic violence.

U.S. Department of Justice

• A state-by-state guide to local resources

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute

STOP Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
 

New Jersey Coalition for Domestic Violence

American Bar Association COVID-19 resources for communities

Crisis Text Line

• Text HOME to 741741.

National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) COVID-19 Technology Safety

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

Roger R., MD, a primary care physician from Philadelphia, set up a telemedicine appointment with a 24-year-old female patient who was experiencing headaches and was worried she might have COVID-19.

Photodisc/Thinkstock

During the televisit, Dr. R. noticed that “Tonya” (not her real name) had a purplish bruise under her right eye. When asked how she got the bruise, Tonya said she had bumped into a dresser. The physician suspected abuse. He then heard a man’s voice in the background and thought it might belong to the abuser. “Is this a good time for you to talk?” he asked Tonya.

Tonya hesitated.

“When might be a better time?”

Tonya suggested an alternate time, and the physician called her then. During the visit, she shared that her fiancé, a car salesman who was also sheltering at home, was punching her.

“He always had a bad temper. Once he shoved me, but he’s never hit me before. And when he was upset, we used to go out to eat and he calmed down. Now, we’re stuck inside, we can’t even get away from each other to go to work, and he’s getting scary,” she told the doctor.

The physician asked if she would like to be connected with a domestic violence counselor. When Tonya agreed, he called Jessica DuBois Palardy, a licensed social worker and the program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, a Philadelphia-based collaborative project of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Lutheran Settlement House’s Bilingual Domestic Violence Program.
 

A ‘horrifying’ trend

Tonya’s story is not unique. A United Nations report shows that there has been a “horrifying global surge in domestic violence” linked to “lockdowns imposed by the governments responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The United States is no exception – 2,345 calls were placed to the National Domestic Violence Hotline during March 16–April 6, 2020.

Carole Warshaw, MD, director of the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health in Chicago, said, “We know that intimate partner violence is increasing among people sheltering at home, and that abuse has become more severe.”

Even in nonabusive situations, being confined together at close quarters, often amid family stress and financial hardship, can be wearing, and tempers can flare. In an abusive relationship, “the main contributor to violence during shelter-in-place restrictions is that the isolation gives abusers more opportunities for controlling their partners, who have fewer options for accessing safety and support,” Dr. Warshaw said.

It is critical to “approach every clinical encounter knowing that domestic violence may be at play,” she emphasized.
 

Physicians might be the most important lifeline

Physicians are already facing myriad COVID-19–related challenges, and having another concern to keep in mind may be daunting.

“We’re in uncharted territory and we’re all trying to figure out how to navigate this time, how to practice medicine via phone and video conferences, and how to deal with the financial repercussions of the pandemic – not to mention concern for the health of our families,” said Peter F. Cronholm, MD, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “So maintaining vigilance is often difficult. Nevertheless, it’s important not to let this critical issue fall to the wayside.”

Marcella Nyachogo, MSW, a licensed social worker and assistant director of the Bilingual Domestic Violence Program, noted that physicians and other health care providers “may be the only people the patient interacts with, since the abuser may cut the survivor off from family and friends. And because the survivor isn’t leaving the house, he or she doesn’t have an opportunity to interact with coworkers or others – which makes health care providers the most important lifeline.”
 

COVID-19 as a weapon of abuse

Carey Watson, MD, regional medical director of the Family Violence Prevention Program at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, points to a disturbing trend in COVID-19–related abuse.

“Unfortunately, I’m hearing more and more accounts of how the illness itself can be one more weapon in the abuser’s arsenal,” she said.

Experts say that increasingly, abusers are claiming that their partner, who is employed in an “essential” job outside the home, is carrying the virus, and they are using this as a means of control and manipulation.

This is especially true of abusive partners of health care providers, Dr. Watson noted. She recounted the story of a divorced nurse whose husband did not allow her to have contact with their children, allegedly out of concern that she might have COVID-19, and would threaten her with a gun when she protested.

“It is important to keep this abusive tactic in mind, not only when dealing with patients but also with fellow physicians and health care professionals, and check in to see if everything is okay – especially if they seem particularly stressed out or distant,” Dr. Watson recommended.

Trust your clinical gut

How can you tell if your patients might be experiencing abuse when you’re not seeing them in person?

Pay attention to subtle signals and “trust your clinical gut when something doesn’t feel right,” Ms. Nyachogo advised.

If a patient’s demeanor is jittery or anxious or if someone next to him or her is answering all the questions or interrupting the visit, these could be red flags.

Dr. Cronholm added that telemedicine visits offer a “rare window into a patient’s home life that would not be available in an office visit.” For example, a house in disarray, the presence of broken objects, or the presence of another person hovering in the background suggests the need for further exploration.

The starting point of screening and intervention is to recognize that any domestic violence situation is potentially explosive. “The main thing for all providers to keep in mind is ‘first, do no harm,’ ” Ms. Nyachogo emphasized.

“Our agency has been working for years with medical professionals in how to screen and connect folks with help most effectively and safely, and – although the specific situations posed by COVID are new – the overall approach is the same, which is to proceed with caution in how you approach the subject and how you make referrals,” she said.

Begin by asking if it is a convenient time to talk.

“This question takes the onus off the patient, who may not know how to communicate that she has no privacy or is in the middle of an argument,” explained Elsa Swenson, program manager of Home Free community program, which serves individuals experiencing domestic violence. The program is part of Minnesota-based Missions Inc. Programs, which serves those experiencing domestic abuse and chemical dependency.

If the patient indicates that it isn’t a convenient time to talk, find out when would be a better time. “This might be difficult for busy physicians and may not be what they’re accustomed to when calling a patient at home, but the patient’s circumstances are unknown to you, so it’s essential to organize around their ability to talk,” Ms. Swenson noted.
 

‘Are you alone?’

Another important piece of information is whether the patient has privacy – which can be tricky if the abuser is standing right there.

“You don’t want to tip the abuser off to your concerns, so you need to frame the question in a neutral way,” Dr. Watson advised.

For example, you might say that HIPAA laws require that you conduct the consultation with no one else present, and find out if there is a location in the house where the patient can have privacy.

It might be easier to talk on the phone than via video, suggests Florence Remes, a New Jersey–based licensed social worker who specializes in domestic violence. Going into another room and playing music or turning on the television might make it less obvious that a call is taking place, and the abuser would be less likely to overhear the caller’s conversation.

Dr. Watson suggested that questions about abuse might be included with other questions and asked in a simple yes/no format. “I’d like to ask you some standard questions I’m asking everyone during the pandemic. Do you have a cough or fever? Do you have any other physical symptoms? Do you have access to hand sanitizer? How is your sleep? Are you experiencing stress? Do you feel safe at home?”

The abuser, if present, will only hear the patient’s “yes” or “no” without knowing the question. If the patient indicates that she is being abused but is unable to talk, a later time can be arranged to further explore the issue.
 

Technology is a double-edged sword

Modern technologies have been a great boon to patients and physicians during this time of social distancing, allowing ongoing contact and health care when it would not otherwise have been possible. On the other hand, technology is fraught with potential dangers that can jeopardize the patient’s safety and compromise privacy.

Ms. Remes recounted the story of “Susan,” a client with whom she had been conducting teletherapy visits using an approved HIPAA-compliant telemedicine forum. Susan was working from home because of shelter-in-place restrictions. Her husband had been abusive, and Susan was concerned he might be “sabotaging” the household’s WiFi to isolate her from outside sources of support.

At the recommendation of Ms. Remes, Susan continued sessions either via phone calls or by using the WhatsApp program on her cellphone. Many of the requirements governing HIPAA privacy regulations have been temporarily relaxed, and clinicians can use non–encrypted forms of transmission, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, or Skype, if no other platform is available.

But even cellphones have risks, Dr. Warshaw noted. The patient’s abuser might track texts or look at call logs – especially on unsecured platforms. It’s advisable to ask patients about who has access to their phone and computer and discuss ways to increase security.
 

Follow the patient’s lead

Proceed slowly and start with nonthreatening questions, Ms. Palardy advised. “I notice you have some injuries; can you tell me how you got them? Did someone hurt you? What does your relationship look like when you argue? Is there anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe?”

Emphasizing that you are asking these questions because of care and concern is reassuring and helps patients to feel they are not alone, Ms. Nyachogo pointed out.

“As your doctor, I’m worried about your health and (if relevant) your children’s safety. I can help connect you with counseling and support, legal resources, and a shelter, and everything is free and confidential. Would you be interested?” she said.

If the client acknowledges abuse, “follow their lead, but don’t push too hard,” Ms. Nyachogo warned.

“It is the client’s choice whether or not to take action,” she noted. “I’ve met survivors who said that it wasn’t until a doctor or nurse expressed concern about bruises that it even occurred to them that they were being abused. Some lied to the doctor about how they got hurt – but the question planted a seed, even though it might have taken years to follow up on the referral,” she said.
 

What if the patient doesn’t want to get help?

If a patient is not ready to seek help, you can create a home-safety plan. This might include setting follow-up times. If you don’t hear from him or her, you should then call the police. Or you might create a “code word,” such as “apple pie.” If the patient uses that word during a session, you know her life is in danger, Ms. Remes suggested.

Providing written information about how to get help is important but can be problematic if the abuser finds it.

Ms. Nyachogo recommends e-mailing follow-up materials that cover a variety of topics, such as keeping safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, relaxation, healthy eating, getting exercise while homebound, activities for children, and suggestions for hotlines and other resources if one is feeling suicidal or unsafe.

“If you present these as your ‘standard’ follow-up materials, the abuser is less likely to become suspicious,” Ms. Nyachogo noted.
 

Resources are available during COVID-19

All of the experts emphasize that resources for victims of domestic violence remain available during the COVID-19 pandemic, although some shelters may be operating at reduced capacity. Some agencies are finding alternatives to group shelters, such as hotels or Airbnb, which carry less risk of catching COVID-19.

Referring a patient to domestic violence resources is a delicate process. “You don’t want referring the patient for help to further endanger their life,” Ms. Nyachogo said.

The more you can take the burden off the patient, the better. If she is interested in getting help, you can call a domestic violence counselor or advocate while she is on the phone.

“This type of ‘warm handoff’ is what Tonya’s physician did,” Ms. Palardy recounted.

A warm handoff requires that physicians be familiar with domestic violence resources, Dr. Warshaw emphasized.

“Don’t wait until you are working with someone who needs help to find out where to refer them. Take the time to proactively research local agencies specializing in domestic violence and have their phone numbers on hand, so you can offer resources immediately if the person is interested,” she advised. The National Domestic Violence Hotline can also assist with safety planning and access to local resources.
 

‘Thinking on your feet’ critical for physicians

Addressing domestic violence during this unprecedented time requires “thinking on your feet” about novel forms of detection and intervention, Dr. Watson said. This involves a combination of clinical acumen, creativity, and finely honed intuition.

Ms. Nyachogo added, “Keeping an eye on domestic violence can feel like an extra burden, but don’t forget that it is lifesaving work.”
 

Resources

National Domestic Violence Hotline

• 800-799-SAFE (7233)
• The patient can also text LOVEIS to 22522.

National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health

• Provides resources for health care, mental health, and substance use treatment and recovery support providers on responding to domestic violence and other trauma.
• Provides resources for professionals and patients regarding access to substance use and mental health care during the COVID-1 pandemic.
• Provides support for parents, caregivers, and children during the pandemic.
• Provides resources for advocates serving families affected by domestic violence.

U.S. Department of Justice

• A state-by-state guide to local resources

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute

STOP Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
 

New Jersey Coalition for Domestic Violence

American Bar Association COVID-19 resources for communities

Crisis Text Line

• Text HOME to 741741.

National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) COVID-19 Technology Safety

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

Roger R., MD, a primary care physician from Philadelphia, set up a telemedicine appointment with a 24-year-old female patient who was experiencing headaches and was worried she might have COVID-19.

Photodisc/Thinkstock

During the televisit, Dr. R. noticed that “Tonya” (not her real name) had a purplish bruise under her right eye. When asked how she got the bruise, Tonya said she had bumped into a dresser. The physician suspected abuse. He then heard a man’s voice in the background and thought it might belong to the abuser. “Is this a good time for you to talk?” he asked Tonya.

Tonya hesitated.

“When might be a better time?”

Tonya suggested an alternate time, and the physician called her then. During the visit, she shared that her fiancé, a car salesman who was also sheltering at home, was punching her.

“He always had a bad temper. Once he shoved me, but he’s never hit me before. And when he was upset, we used to go out to eat and he calmed down. Now, we’re stuck inside, we can’t even get away from each other to go to work, and he’s getting scary,” she told the doctor.

The physician asked if she would like to be connected with a domestic violence counselor. When Tonya agreed, he called Jessica DuBois Palardy, a licensed social worker and the program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, a Philadelphia-based collaborative project of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Lutheran Settlement House’s Bilingual Domestic Violence Program.
 

A ‘horrifying’ trend

Tonya’s story is not unique. A United Nations report shows that there has been a “horrifying global surge in domestic violence” linked to “lockdowns imposed by the governments responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The United States is no exception – 2,345 calls were placed to the National Domestic Violence Hotline during March 16–April 6, 2020.

Carole Warshaw, MD, director of the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health in Chicago, said, “We know that intimate partner violence is increasing among people sheltering at home, and that abuse has become more severe.”

Even in nonabusive situations, being confined together at close quarters, often amid family stress and financial hardship, can be wearing, and tempers can flare. In an abusive relationship, “the main contributor to violence during shelter-in-place restrictions is that the isolation gives abusers more opportunities for controlling their partners, who have fewer options for accessing safety and support,” Dr. Warshaw said.

It is critical to “approach every clinical encounter knowing that domestic violence may be at play,” she emphasized.
 

Physicians might be the most important lifeline

Physicians are already facing myriad COVID-19–related challenges, and having another concern to keep in mind may be daunting.

“We’re in uncharted territory and we’re all trying to figure out how to navigate this time, how to practice medicine via phone and video conferences, and how to deal with the financial repercussions of the pandemic – not to mention concern for the health of our families,” said Peter F. Cronholm, MD, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “So maintaining vigilance is often difficult. Nevertheless, it’s important not to let this critical issue fall to the wayside.”

Marcella Nyachogo, MSW, a licensed social worker and assistant director of the Bilingual Domestic Violence Program, noted that physicians and other health care providers “may be the only people the patient interacts with, since the abuser may cut the survivor off from family and friends. And because the survivor isn’t leaving the house, he or she doesn’t have an opportunity to interact with coworkers or others – which makes health care providers the most important lifeline.”
 

COVID-19 as a weapon of abuse

Carey Watson, MD, regional medical director of the Family Violence Prevention Program at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, points to a disturbing trend in COVID-19–related abuse.

“Unfortunately, I’m hearing more and more accounts of how the illness itself can be one more weapon in the abuser’s arsenal,” she said.

Experts say that increasingly, abusers are claiming that their partner, who is employed in an “essential” job outside the home, is carrying the virus, and they are using this as a means of control and manipulation.

This is especially true of abusive partners of health care providers, Dr. Watson noted. She recounted the story of a divorced nurse whose husband did not allow her to have contact with their children, allegedly out of concern that she might have COVID-19, and would threaten her with a gun when she protested.

“It is important to keep this abusive tactic in mind, not only when dealing with patients but also with fellow physicians and health care professionals, and check in to see if everything is okay – especially if they seem particularly stressed out or distant,” Dr. Watson recommended.

Trust your clinical gut

How can you tell if your patients might be experiencing abuse when you’re not seeing them in person?

Pay attention to subtle signals and “trust your clinical gut when something doesn’t feel right,” Ms. Nyachogo advised.

If a patient’s demeanor is jittery or anxious or if someone next to him or her is answering all the questions or interrupting the visit, these could be red flags.

Dr. Cronholm added that telemedicine visits offer a “rare window into a patient’s home life that would not be available in an office visit.” For example, a house in disarray, the presence of broken objects, or the presence of another person hovering in the background suggests the need for further exploration.

The starting point of screening and intervention is to recognize that any domestic violence situation is potentially explosive. “The main thing for all providers to keep in mind is ‘first, do no harm,’ ” Ms. Nyachogo emphasized.

“Our agency has been working for years with medical professionals in how to screen and connect folks with help most effectively and safely, and – although the specific situations posed by COVID are new – the overall approach is the same, which is to proceed with caution in how you approach the subject and how you make referrals,” she said.

Begin by asking if it is a convenient time to talk.

“This question takes the onus off the patient, who may not know how to communicate that she has no privacy or is in the middle of an argument,” explained Elsa Swenson, program manager of Home Free community program, which serves individuals experiencing domestic violence. The program is part of Minnesota-based Missions Inc. Programs, which serves those experiencing domestic abuse and chemical dependency.

If the patient indicates that it isn’t a convenient time to talk, find out when would be a better time. “This might be difficult for busy physicians and may not be what they’re accustomed to when calling a patient at home, but the patient’s circumstances are unknown to you, so it’s essential to organize around their ability to talk,” Ms. Swenson noted.
 

‘Are you alone?’

Another important piece of information is whether the patient has privacy – which can be tricky if the abuser is standing right there.

“You don’t want to tip the abuser off to your concerns, so you need to frame the question in a neutral way,” Dr. Watson advised.

For example, you might say that HIPAA laws require that you conduct the consultation with no one else present, and find out if there is a location in the house where the patient can have privacy.

It might be easier to talk on the phone than via video, suggests Florence Remes, a New Jersey–based licensed social worker who specializes in domestic violence. Going into another room and playing music or turning on the television might make it less obvious that a call is taking place, and the abuser would be less likely to overhear the caller’s conversation.

Dr. Watson suggested that questions about abuse might be included with other questions and asked in a simple yes/no format. “I’d like to ask you some standard questions I’m asking everyone during the pandemic. Do you have a cough or fever? Do you have any other physical symptoms? Do you have access to hand sanitizer? How is your sleep? Are you experiencing stress? Do you feel safe at home?”

The abuser, if present, will only hear the patient’s “yes” or “no” without knowing the question. If the patient indicates that she is being abused but is unable to talk, a later time can be arranged to further explore the issue.
 

Technology is a double-edged sword

Modern technologies have been a great boon to patients and physicians during this time of social distancing, allowing ongoing contact and health care when it would not otherwise have been possible. On the other hand, technology is fraught with potential dangers that can jeopardize the patient’s safety and compromise privacy.

Ms. Remes recounted the story of “Susan,” a client with whom she had been conducting teletherapy visits using an approved HIPAA-compliant telemedicine forum. Susan was working from home because of shelter-in-place restrictions. Her husband had been abusive, and Susan was concerned he might be “sabotaging” the household’s WiFi to isolate her from outside sources of support.

At the recommendation of Ms. Remes, Susan continued sessions either via phone calls or by using the WhatsApp program on her cellphone. Many of the requirements governing HIPAA privacy regulations have been temporarily relaxed, and clinicians can use non–encrypted forms of transmission, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, or Skype, if no other platform is available.

But even cellphones have risks, Dr. Warshaw noted. The patient’s abuser might track texts or look at call logs – especially on unsecured platforms. It’s advisable to ask patients about who has access to their phone and computer and discuss ways to increase security.
 

Follow the patient’s lead

Proceed slowly and start with nonthreatening questions, Ms. Palardy advised. “I notice you have some injuries; can you tell me how you got them? Did someone hurt you? What does your relationship look like when you argue? Is there anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe?”

Emphasizing that you are asking these questions because of care and concern is reassuring and helps patients to feel they are not alone, Ms. Nyachogo pointed out.

“As your doctor, I’m worried about your health and (if relevant) your children’s safety. I can help connect you with counseling and support, legal resources, and a shelter, and everything is free and confidential. Would you be interested?” she said.

If the client acknowledges abuse, “follow their lead, but don’t push too hard,” Ms. Nyachogo warned.

“It is the client’s choice whether or not to take action,” she noted. “I’ve met survivors who said that it wasn’t until a doctor or nurse expressed concern about bruises that it even occurred to them that they were being abused. Some lied to the doctor about how they got hurt – but the question planted a seed, even though it might have taken years to follow up on the referral,” she said.
 

What if the patient doesn’t want to get help?

If a patient is not ready to seek help, you can create a home-safety plan. This might include setting follow-up times. If you don’t hear from him or her, you should then call the police. Or you might create a “code word,” such as “apple pie.” If the patient uses that word during a session, you know her life is in danger, Ms. Remes suggested.

Providing written information about how to get help is important but can be problematic if the abuser finds it.

Ms. Nyachogo recommends e-mailing follow-up materials that cover a variety of topics, such as keeping safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, relaxation, healthy eating, getting exercise while homebound, activities for children, and suggestions for hotlines and other resources if one is feeling suicidal or unsafe.

“If you present these as your ‘standard’ follow-up materials, the abuser is less likely to become suspicious,” Ms. Nyachogo noted.
 

Resources are available during COVID-19

All of the experts emphasize that resources for victims of domestic violence remain available during the COVID-19 pandemic, although some shelters may be operating at reduced capacity. Some agencies are finding alternatives to group shelters, such as hotels or Airbnb, which carry less risk of catching COVID-19.

Referring a patient to domestic violence resources is a delicate process. “You don’t want referring the patient for help to further endanger their life,” Ms. Nyachogo said.

The more you can take the burden off the patient, the better. If she is interested in getting help, you can call a domestic violence counselor or advocate while she is on the phone.

“This type of ‘warm handoff’ is what Tonya’s physician did,” Ms. Palardy recounted.

A warm handoff requires that physicians be familiar with domestic violence resources, Dr. Warshaw emphasized.

“Don’t wait until you are working with someone who needs help to find out where to refer them. Take the time to proactively research local agencies specializing in domestic violence and have their phone numbers on hand, so you can offer resources immediately if the person is interested,” she advised. The National Domestic Violence Hotline can also assist with safety planning and access to local resources.
 

‘Thinking on your feet’ critical for physicians

Addressing domestic violence during this unprecedented time requires “thinking on your feet” about novel forms of detection and intervention, Dr. Watson said. This involves a combination of clinical acumen, creativity, and finely honed intuition.

Ms. Nyachogo added, “Keeping an eye on domestic violence can feel like an extra burden, but don’t forget that it is lifesaving work.”
 

Resources

National Domestic Violence Hotline

• 800-799-SAFE (7233)
• The patient can also text LOVEIS to 22522.

National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health

• Provides resources for health care, mental health, and substance use treatment and recovery support providers on responding to domestic violence and other trauma.
• Provides resources for professionals and patients regarding access to substance use and mental health care during the COVID-1 pandemic.
• Provides support for parents, caregivers, and children during the pandemic.
• Provides resources for advocates serving families affected by domestic violence.

U.S. Department of Justice

• A state-by-state guide to local resources

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute

STOP Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
 

New Jersey Coalition for Domestic Violence

American Bar Association COVID-19 resources for communities

Crisis Text Line

• Text HOME to 741741.

National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) COVID-19 Technology Safety

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

Clinicians and pregnant women are less likely to prescribe and undergo the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose gestational diabetes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a review by H. David McIntyre, MD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and Robert G. Moses, MD, of Wollongong (Australia) Hospital.

National and international discussions of whether a one- or two-step test for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is optimal, and which women should be tested are ongoing, but the potential for exposure risks to COVID-19 are impacting the test process, they wrote in a commentary published in Diabetes Care.

“Any national or local guidelines should be developed with the primary aim of being protective for pregnant women and workable in the current health crisis,” they wrote.

Key concerns expressed by women and health care providers include the need for travel to be tested, the possible need for two visits, and the several hours spent in a potentially high-risk specimen collection center.

“Further, a GDM diagnosis generally involves additional health service visits for diabetes education, glucose monitoring review, and fetal ultrasonography, all of which carry exposure risks during a pandemic,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses noted.

Professional societies in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have issued guidance to clinicians for modifying GDM diagnoses criteria during the pandemic that aim to reduce the need for the oral glucose tolerance test both during and after pregnancy.

Pandemic guidelines for all three of these countries support the identification of GDM using early pregnancy hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) of at least 41 mmol/mol (5.9%).

Then, professionals in the United Kingdom recommend testing based on risk factors and diagnosing GDM based on any of these criteria: HbA_1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%), fasting venous plasma glucose of at least 5.6 mmol/L (preferred), or random VPG of at least 9.0 mmol/L.

The revised testing pathway for Canada accepts an HbA_1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%) and/or random VPG of at least 11.1 mmol/L.

“The revised Australian pathway does not include HbA_1c but recommends a fasting VPG with progression to OGTT only if this result is 4.7-5.0 mmol/L,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses explained.

Overall, the revised guidelines for GDM testing will likely miss some women and only identify those with higher levels of hyperglycemia, the authors wrote. In addition, “the evidence base for these revised pathways is limited and that each alternative strategy should be evaluated over the course of the current pandemic.”

Validation of new testing strategies are needed, and the pandemic may provide and opportunity to adopt an alternative to the OGTT. The World Health Organization has not issued revised guidance for other methods of testing, but fasting VPG alone may be the simplest and most cost effective, at least for the short term, they noted.

“In this ‘new COVID world,’ GDM should not be ignored but pragmatically merits a lower priority than the avoidance of exposure to the COVID-19 virus,” although no single alternative strategy applies in all countries and situations, the authors concluded. Pragmatic measures and documentation of outcomes at the local level will offer the “least worst” solution while the pandemic continues.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: McIntyre HD, Moses RG. Diabetes Care. 2020 May. doi: 10.2337/dci20-0026.

Clinicians and pregnant women are less likely to prescribe and undergo the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose gestational diabetes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a review by H. David McIntyre, MD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and Robert G. Moses, MD, of Wollongong (Australia) Hospital.

National and international discussions of whether a one- or two-step test for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is optimal, and which women should be tested are ongoing, but the potential for exposure risks to COVID-19 are impacting the test process, they wrote in a commentary published in Diabetes Care.

“Any national or local guidelines should be developed with the primary aim of being protective for pregnant women and workable in the current health crisis,” they wrote.

Key concerns expressed by women and health care providers include the need for travel to be tested, the possible need for two visits, and the several hours spent in a potentially high-risk specimen collection center.

“Further, a GDM diagnosis generally involves additional health service visits for diabetes education, glucose monitoring review, and fetal ultrasonography, all of which carry exposure risks during a pandemic,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses noted.

Professional societies in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have issued guidance to clinicians for modifying GDM diagnoses criteria during the pandemic that aim to reduce the need for the oral glucose tolerance test both during and after pregnancy.

Pandemic guidelines for all three of these countries support the identification of GDM using early pregnancy hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) of at least 41 mmol/mol (5.9%).

Then, professionals in the United Kingdom recommend testing based on risk factors and diagnosing GDM based on any of these criteria: HbA_1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%), fasting venous plasma glucose of at least 5.6 mmol/L (preferred), or random VPG of at least 9.0 mmol/L.

The revised testing pathway for Canada accepts an HbA_1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%) and/or random VPG of at least 11.1 mmol/L.

“The revised Australian pathway does not include HbA_1c but recommends a fasting VPG with progression to OGTT only if this result is 4.7-5.0 mmol/L,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses explained.

Overall, the revised guidelines for GDM testing will likely miss some women and only identify those with higher levels of hyperglycemia, the authors wrote. In addition, “the evidence base for these revised pathways is limited and that each alternative strategy should be evaluated over the course of the current pandemic.”

Validation of new testing strategies are needed, and the pandemic may provide and opportunity to adopt an alternative to the OGTT. The World Health Organization has not issued revised guidance for other methods of testing, but fasting VPG alone may be the simplest and most cost effective, at least for the short term, they noted.

“In this ‘new COVID world,’ GDM should not be ignored but pragmatically merits a lower priority than the avoidance of exposure to the COVID-19 virus,” although no single alternative strategy applies in all countries and situations, the authors concluded. Pragmatic measures and documentation of outcomes at the local level will offer the “least worst” solution while the pandemic continues.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: McIntyre HD, Moses RG. Diabetes Care. 2020 May. doi: 10.2337/dci20-0026.

Clinicians and pregnant women are less likely to prescribe and undergo the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose gestational diabetes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a review by H. David McIntyre, MD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and Robert G. Moses, MD, of Wollongong (Australia) Hospital.

National and international discussions of whether a one- or two-step test for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is optimal, and which women should be tested are ongoing, but the potential for exposure risks to COVID-19 are impacting the test process, they wrote in a commentary published in Diabetes Care.

“Any national or local guidelines should be developed with the primary aim of being protective for pregnant women and workable in the current health crisis,” they wrote.

Key concerns expressed by women and health care providers include the need for travel to be tested, the possible need for two visits, and the several hours spent in a potentially high-risk specimen collection center.

“Further, a GDM diagnosis generally involves additional health service visits for diabetes education, glucose monitoring review, and fetal ultrasonography, all of which carry exposure risks during a pandemic,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses noted.

Professional societies in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have issued guidance to clinicians for modifying GDM diagnoses criteria during the pandemic that aim to reduce the need for the oral glucose tolerance test both during and after pregnancy.

Pandemic guidelines for all three of these countries support the identification of GDM using early pregnancy hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) of at least 41 mmol/mol (5.9%).

Then, professionals in the United Kingdom recommend testing based on risk factors and diagnosing GDM based on any of these criteria: HbA_1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%), fasting venous plasma glucose of at least 5.6 mmol/L (preferred), or random VPG of at least 9.0 mmol/L.

The revised testing pathway for Canada accepts an HbA_1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%) and/or random VPG of at least 11.1 mmol/L.

“The revised Australian pathway does not include HbA_1c but recommends a fasting VPG with progression to OGTT only if this result is 4.7-5.0 mmol/L,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses explained.

Overall, the revised guidelines for GDM testing will likely miss some women and only identify those with higher levels of hyperglycemia, the authors wrote. In addition, “the evidence base for these revised pathways is limited and that each alternative strategy should be evaluated over the course of the current pandemic.”

Validation of new testing strategies are needed, and the pandemic may provide and opportunity to adopt an alternative to the OGTT. The World Health Organization has not issued revised guidance for other methods of testing, but fasting VPG alone may be the simplest and most cost effective, at least for the short term, they noted.

“In this ‘new COVID world,’ GDM should not be ignored but pragmatically merits a lower priority than the avoidance of exposure to the COVID-19 virus,” although no single alternative strategy applies in all countries and situations, the authors concluded. Pragmatic measures and documentation of outcomes at the local level will offer the “least worst” solution while the pandemic continues.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: McIntyre HD, Moses RG. Diabetes Care. 2020 May. doi: 10.2337/dci20-0026.

You can catch COVID-19 if an infected person coughs or sneezes and contagious droplets enter your nose or mouth. But can you become ill if the virus lands in your eyes?

Virologist Joseph Fair, PhD, an NBC News contributor, raised that concern when he became critically ill with COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. From a hospital bed in his hometown of New Orleans, he told the network that he had flown on a crowded plane where flight attendants weren’t wearing masks. He wore a mask and gloves, but no eye protection.

“My best guess,” he told the interviewer, “was that it came through the eye route.”

Asked if people should start wearing eye protection, Dr. Fair replied, “In my opinion, yes.”

While Dr. Fair is convinced that eye protection helps, other experts aren’t sure. So much remains unknown about the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, that researchers are still trying to establish whether infection can actually happen through the eyes.

“I don’t think we can answer that question with 100% confidence at this time,” said H. Nida Sen, MD, director of the uveitis clinic at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., and a clinical investigator who is studying the effects of COVID-19 on the eye. But, she says, “I think it is biologically plausible.”

Some research has begun pointing in that direction, according to Elia Duh, MD, a researcher and professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The clear tissue that covers the white of the eye and lines the inside of the eyelid, known as the conjunctiva, “can be infected by other viruses, such as adenoviruses associated with the common cold and the herpes simplex virus,” he said.

There’s the same chance of infection with SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Duh. “If there are droplets that an infected individual is producing by coughing or sneezing or even speaking, then the front of the eyes are directly exposed, just like the nasal passages are exposed. In addition, people rub and touch their eyes a lot. So there’s certainly already the vulnerability.”

To study whether SARS-CoV-2 could infect the eyes, Dr. Duh and fellow researchers at Johns Hopkins looked at whether the eye’s surface cells possess key factors that make the virus more likely to enter and infect them.

In their study (BioRxiv. 2020 May 9. doi: 10.1101/2020.05.09.086165), which is now being peer-reviewed, the team examined 10 postmortem eyes and five surgical samples of conjunctiva from patients who did not have the coronavirus. They wanted to see whether the eyes’ surface cells produced the key receptor for coronavirus, the ACE2 receptor.

For SARS-CoV-2 to enter a cell, “the cell has to have ACE2 on its surface so that the coronavirus can latch onto it and gain entry into the cell,” Dr. Duh said.

Not much research existed on ACE2 and the eye’s surface cells, he said. “We were really struck that ACE2 was clearly present in the surface cells of all of the specimens.” In addition, the researchers found that the eye’s surface cells also produce TMPRSS2, an enzyme that helps the virus enter the cell.

More research is needed for a definitive answer, Dr. Duh said. But “all of this evidence together seems to suggest that there’s a good likelihood that the ocular surface cells are susceptible to infection by coronavirus.”

If that’s the case, the virus then could be transmitted through the tear ducts that connect the eyes to the nasal cavity and subsequently infect the respiratory cells, he said.

Edward E. Manche, MD, professor of ophthalmology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while doctors don’t know for sure, many think eye infection can happen. “I think it’s widely believed now that you can acquire it through the eye. The way the virus works, it’s most commonly transmitted through the mouth and nasal passages. We have mucosal tissues where it can get in.”

Dr. Manche said the eyes would be “the least common mode of transmission.”

Besides looking at the eyes as an entryway, researchers are exploring whether people with SARS-CoV-2 in their eyes could infect others through their tears or eye secretions.

“The virus has been detected in tears and conjunctival swab specimens from individuals with COVID-19,” Dr. Duh said. “If someone rubs their eyes and then touches someone else or touches a surface, that kind of transmission mechanism could occur.

“It again highlights how contagious the coronavirus is and how stealthy it can be in its contagiousness,” he said.

If it turns out that the coronavirus can infect the eyes, the virus could persist there as a source of contagion, Dr. Duh said. “The eyes and tears could serve as a source of infection to others for longer.” He noted a case of a COVID-infected woman with conjunctivitis who still had detectable virus in her eyes 3 weeks after her symptoms started.

Conjunctivitis, commonly called pink eye, could be a symptom of COVID-19, said Dr. Sen, who is an ophthalmologist. She recommends that people get tested for COVID-19 if they have this condition, which is marked by redness, itchiness, tearing, discharge, and a gritty sensation in the eye.

Dr. Fair, the virologist, was released from the hospital to recover at home and continued to urge eye protection. “People like to call people like me fearmongers ... but the reality is, we’re just trying to keep them safe,” he told NBC News.

The CDC hasn’t issued such advice. In an email, the agency said it “does not have specific recommendations for the public regarding eye protection. However, in health care settings, the CDC does recommend eye protection for health care workers to prevent transmission via droplets.”

Dr. Sen agrees. “For the general public, I don’t think we have enough data to suggest that they should be covering the eyes in some form,” she said.

When she goes to the grocery store, she doesn’t wear eye protection. “I am only wearing goggles when I’m seeing ophthalmology patients up close, basically because I’m 4 or 5 inches away from them.”

But fuller protection – a mask, gloves, and even eye protection, such as goggles – might help those taking care of a COVID-19 patient at home, Dr. Manche said. “If you’re caring for somebody, that’s a much higher risk because they’re shedding viral load. You lessen the chance of transmission.”

For the public, Dr. Sen stresses the continued importance of hand hygiene. “In an abundance of caution, I would still encourage handwashing and not touching the eye for many reasons, not just COVID. You can transmit simple infections to your eye. We have other viruses and bacteria that are circulating in the environment and in our bodies elsewhere, so we can easily carry those to the eyes.”

Switching from contact lenses to eyeglasses could help cut down on touching the eyes, she says. Eyeglasses can also be a “mechanical barrier” to keep hands away.

Eyeglasses might block some droplets if someone nearby sneezes or coughs, Dr. Manche said, although they “aren’t sealed around the edges. They’re not like true medical goggles that are going to keep out the virus.”

Dr. Duh agrees that health care workers must don eye protection, but he said the public doesn’t need to start wearing goggles, face shields, or other eye protection. “I still think the major mode of transmission is through the nasal passages and the respiratory system,” he said.

It’s unclear whether eye protection is warranted for airplane passengers, Dr. Manche said. “It probably wouldn’t hurt, but I think the more important thing would be to take precautions: wearing a face mask, washing your hands, cleaning the seats and tray tables in front of you, and not touching things and touching your face and eyes.”

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

You can catch COVID-19 if an infected person coughs or sneezes and contagious droplets enter your nose or mouth. But can you become ill if the virus lands in your eyes?

Virologist Joseph Fair, PhD, an NBC News contributor, raised that concern when he became critically ill with COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. From a hospital bed in his hometown of New Orleans, he told the network that he had flown on a crowded plane where flight attendants weren’t wearing masks. He wore a mask and gloves, but no eye protection.

“My best guess,” he told the interviewer, “was that it came through the eye route.”

Asked if people should start wearing eye protection, Dr. Fair replied, “In my opinion, yes.”

While Dr. Fair is convinced that eye protection helps, other experts aren’t sure. So much remains unknown about the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, that researchers are still trying to establish whether infection can actually happen through the eyes.

“I don’t think we can answer that question with 100% confidence at this time,” said H. Nida Sen, MD, director of the uveitis clinic at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., and a clinical investigator who is studying the effects of COVID-19 on the eye. But, she says, “I think it is biologically plausible.”

Some research has begun pointing in that direction, according to Elia Duh, MD, a researcher and professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The clear tissue that covers the white of the eye and lines the inside of the eyelid, known as the conjunctiva, “can be infected by other viruses, such as adenoviruses associated with the common cold and the herpes simplex virus,” he said.

There’s the same chance of infection with SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Duh. “If there are droplets that an infected individual is producing by coughing or sneezing or even speaking, then the front of the eyes are directly exposed, just like the nasal passages are exposed. In addition, people rub and touch their eyes a lot. So there’s certainly already the vulnerability.”

To study whether SARS-CoV-2 could infect the eyes, Dr. Duh and fellow researchers at Johns Hopkins looked at whether the eye’s surface cells possess key factors that make the virus more likely to enter and infect them.

In their study (BioRxiv. 2020 May 9. doi: 10.1101/2020.05.09.086165), which is now being peer-reviewed, the team examined 10 postmortem eyes and five surgical samples of conjunctiva from patients who did not have the coronavirus. They wanted to see whether the eyes’ surface cells produced the key receptor for coronavirus, the ACE2 receptor.

For SARS-CoV-2 to enter a cell, “the cell has to have ACE2 on its surface so that the coronavirus can latch onto it and gain entry into the cell,” Dr. Duh said.

Not much research existed on ACE2 and the eye’s surface cells, he said. “We were really struck that ACE2 was clearly present in the surface cells of all of the specimens.” In addition, the researchers found that the eye’s surface cells also produce TMPRSS2, an enzyme that helps the virus enter the cell.

More research is needed for a definitive answer, Dr. Duh said. But “all of this evidence together seems to suggest that there’s a good likelihood that the ocular surface cells are susceptible to infection by coronavirus.”

If that’s the case, the virus then could be transmitted through the tear ducts that connect the eyes to the nasal cavity and subsequently infect the respiratory cells, he said.

Edward E. Manche, MD, professor of ophthalmology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while doctors don’t know for sure, many think eye infection can happen. “I think it’s widely believed now that you can acquire it through the eye. The way the virus works, it’s most commonly transmitted through the mouth and nasal passages. We have mucosal tissues where it can get in.”

Dr. Manche said the eyes would be “the least common mode of transmission.”

Besides looking at the eyes as an entryway, researchers are exploring whether people with SARS-CoV-2 in their eyes could infect others through their tears or eye secretions.

“The virus has been detected in tears and conjunctival swab specimens from individuals with COVID-19,” Dr. Duh said. “If someone rubs their eyes and then touches someone else or touches a surface, that kind of transmission mechanism could occur.

“It again highlights how contagious the coronavirus is and how stealthy it can be in its contagiousness,” he said.

If it turns out that the coronavirus can infect the eyes, the virus could persist there as a source of contagion, Dr. Duh said. “The eyes and tears could serve as a source of infection to others for longer.” He noted a case of a COVID-infected woman with conjunctivitis who still had detectable virus in her eyes 3 weeks after her symptoms started.

Conjunctivitis, commonly called pink eye, could be a symptom of COVID-19, said Dr. Sen, who is an ophthalmologist. She recommends that people get tested for COVID-19 if they have this condition, which is marked by redness, itchiness, tearing, discharge, and a gritty sensation in the eye.

Dr. Fair, the virologist, was released from the hospital to recover at home and continued to urge eye protection. “People like to call people like me fearmongers ... but the reality is, we’re just trying to keep them safe,” he told NBC News.

The CDC hasn’t issued such advice. In an email, the agency said it “does not have specific recommendations for the public regarding eye protection. However, in health care settings, the CDC does recommend eye protection for health care workers to prevent transmission via droplets.”

Dr. Sen agrees. “For the general public, I don’t think we have enough data to suggest that they should be covering the eyes in some form,” she said.

When she goes to the grocery store, she doesn’t wear eye protection. “I am only wearing goggles when I’m seeing ophthalmology patients up close, basically because I’m 4 or 5 inches away from them.”

But fuller protection – a mask, gloves, and even eye protection, such as goggles – might help those taking care of a COVID-19 patient at home, Dr. Manche said. “If you’re caring for somebody, that’s a much higher risk because they’re shedding viral load. You lessen the chance of transmission.”

For the public, Dr. Sen stresses the continued importance of hand hygiene. “In an abundance of caution, I would still encourage handwashing and not touching the eye for many reasons, not just COVID. You can transmit simple infections to your eye. We have other viruses and bacteria that are circulating in the environment and in our bodies elsewhere, so we can easily carry those to the eyes.”

Switching from contact lenses to eyeglasses could help cut down on touching the eyes, she says. Eyeglasses can also be a “mechanical barrier” to keep hands away.

Eyeglasses might block some droplets if someone nearby sneezes or coughs, Dr. Manche said, although they “aren’t sealed around the edges. They’re not like true medical goggles that are going to keep out the virus.”

Dr. Duh agrees that health care workers must don eye protection, but he said the public doesn’t need to start wearing goggles, face shields, or other eye protection. “I still think the major mode of transmission is through the nasal passages and the respiratory system,” he said.

It’s unclear whether eye protection is warranted for airplane passengers, Dr. Manche said. “It probably wouldn’t hurt, but I think the more important thing would be to take precautions: wearing a face mask, washing your hands, cleaning the seats and tray tables in front of you, and not touching things and touching your face and eyes.”

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

You can catch COVID-19 if an infected person coughs or sneezes and contagious droplets enter your nose or mouth. But can you become ill if the virus lands in your eyes?

Virologist Joseph Fair, PhD, an NBC News contributor, raised that concern when he became critically ill with COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. From a hospital bed in his hometown of New Orleans, he told the network that he had flown on a crowded plane where flight attendants weren’t wearing masks. He wore a mask and gloves, but no eye protection.

“My best guess,” he told the interviewer, “was that it came through the eye route.”

Asked if people should start wearing eye protection, Dr. Fair replied, “In my opinion, yes.”

While Dr. Fair is convinced that eye protection helps, other experts aren’t sure. So much remains unknown about the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, that researchers are still trying to establish whether infection can actually happen through the eyes.

“I don’t think we can answer that question with 100% confidence at this time,” said H. Nida Sen, MD, director of the uveitis clinic at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., and a clinical investigator who is studying the effects of COVID-19 on the eye. But, she says, “I think it is biologically plausible.”

Some research has begun pointing in that direction, according to Elia Duh, MD, a researcher and professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The clear tissue that covers the white of the eye and lines the inside of the eyelid, known as the conjunctiva, “can be infected by other viruses, such as adenoviruses associated with the common cold and the herpes simplex virus,” he said.

There’s the same chance of infection with SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Duh. “If there are droplets that an infected individual is producing by coughing or sneezing or even speaking, then the front of the eyes are directly exposed, just like the nasal passages are exposed. In addition, people rub and touch their eyes a lot. So there’s certainly already the vulnerability.”

To study whether SARS-CoV-2 could infect the eyes, Dr. Duh and fellow researchers at Johns Hopkins looked at whether the eye’s surface cells possess key factors that make the virus more likely to enter and infect them.

In their study (BioRxiv. 2020 May 9. doi: 10.1101/2020.05.09.086165), which is now being peer-reviewed, the team examined 10 postmortem eyes and five surgical samples of conjunctiva from patients who did not have the coronavirus. They wanted to see whether the eyes’ surface cells produced the key receptor for coronavirus, the ACE2 receptor.

For SARS-CoV-2 to enter a cell, “the cell has to have ACE2 on its surface so that the coronavirus can latch onto it and gain entry into the cell,” Dr. Duh said.

Not much research existed on ACE2 and the eye’s surface cells, he said. “We were really struck that ACE2 was clearly present in the surface cells of all of the specimens.” In addition, the researchers found that the eye’s surface cells also produce TMPRSS2, an enzyme that helps the virus enter the cell.

More research is needed for a definitive answer, Dr. Duh said. But “all of this evidence together seems to suggest that there’s a good likelihood that the ocular surface cells are susceptible to infection by coronavirus.”

If that’s the case, the virus then could be transmitted through the tear ducts that connect the eyes to the nasal cavity and subsequently infect the respiratory cells, he said.

Edward E. Manche, MD, professor of ophthalmology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that while doctors don’t know for sure, many think eye infection can happen. “I think it’s widely believed now that you can acquire it through the eye. The way the virus works, it’s most commonly transmitted through the mouth and nasal passages. We have mucosal tissues where it can get in.”

Dr. Manche said the eyes would be “the least common mode of transmission.”

Besides looking at the eyes as an entryway, researchers are exploring whether people with SARS-CoV-2 in their eyes could infect others through their tears or eye secretions.

“The virus has been detected in tears and conjunctival swab specimens from individuals with COVID-19,” Dr. Duh said. “If someone rubs their eyes and then touches someone else or touches a surface, that kind of transmission mechanism could occur.

“It again highlights how contagious the coronavirus is and how stealthy it can be in its contagiousness,” he said.

If it turns out that the coronavirus can infect the eyes, the virus could persist there as a source of contagion, Dr. Duh said. “The eyes and tears could serve as a source of infection to others for longer.” He noted a case of a COVID-infected woman with conjunctivitis who still had detectable virus in her eyes 3 weeks after her symptoms started.

Conjunctivitis, commonly called pink eye, could be a symptom of COVID-19, said Dr. Sen, who is an ophthalmologist. She recommends that people get tested for COVID-19 if they have this condition, which is marked by redness, itchiness, tearing, discharge, and a gritty sensation in the eye.

Dr. Fair, the virologist, was released from the hospital to recover at home and continued to urge eye protection. “People like to call people like me fearmongers ... but the reality is, we’re just trying to keep them safe,” he told NBC News.

The CDC hasn’t issued such advice. In an email, the agency said it “does not have specific recommendations for the public regarding eye protection. However, in health care settings, the CDC does recommend eye protection for health care workers to prevent transmission via droplets.”

Dr. Sen agrees. “For the general public, I don’t think we have enough data to suggest that they should be covering the eyes in some form,” she said.

When she goes to the grocery store, she doesn’t wear eye protection. “I am only wearing goggles when I’m seeing ophthalmology patients up close, basically because I’m 4 or 5 inches away from them.”

But fuller protection – a mask, gloves, and even eye protection, such as goggles – might help those taking care of a COVID-19 patient at home, Dr. Manche said. “If you’re caring for somebody, that’s a much higher risk because they’re shedding viral load. You lessen the chance of transmission.”

For the public, Dr. Sen stresses the continued importance of hand hygiene. “In an abundance of caution, I would still encourage handwashing and not touching the eye for many reasons, not just COVID. You can transmit simple infections to your eye. We have other viruses and bacteria that are circulating in the environment and in our bodies elsewhere, so we can easily carry those to the eyes.”

Switching from contact lenses to eyeglasses could help cut down on touching the eyes, she says. Eyeglasses can also be a “mechanical barrier” to keep hands away.

Eyeglasses might block some droplets if someone nearby sneezes or coughs, Dr. Manche said, although they “aren’t sealed around the edges. They’re not like true medical goggles that are going to keep out the virus.”

Dr. Duh agrees that health care workers must don eye protection, but he said the public doesn’t need to start wearing goggles, face shields, or other eye protection. “I still think the major mode of transmission is through the nasal passages and the respiratory system,” he said.

It’s unclear whether eye protection is warranted for airplane passengers, Dr. Manche said. “It probably wouldn’t hurt, but I think the more important thing would be to take precautions: wearing a face mask, washing your hands, cleaning the seats and tray tables in front of you, and not touching things and touching your face and eyes.”

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

Children with COVID-19 are more likely to develop severe illness and require intensive care than previously realized, data from a single-center study suggest.

Jerry Y. Chao, MD, of the department of anesthesiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported their findings in an article published online May 11 in the Journal of Pediatrics.

“Thankfully most children with COVID-19 fare well, and some do not have any symptoms at all, but this research is a sobering reminder that children are not immune to this virus and some do require a higher level of care,” senior author Shivanand S. Medar, MD, FAAP, attending physician, Cardiac Intensive Care, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, and assistant professor of pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in a Montefiore Medical Center news release.

The study included 67 patients aged 1 month to 21 years (median, 13.1 years) who were treated for COVID-19 at a tertiary care children’s hospital between March 15 and April 13. Of those, 21 (31.3%) were treated as outpatients.

“As the number of patients screened for COVID-19 was restricted during the first weeks of the outbreak because of limited testing availability, the number of mildly symptomatic patients is not known, and therefore these 21 patients are not included in the analysis,” the authors wrote.

Of the 46 hospitalized patients, 33 (72%) were admitted to a general pediatric medical ward, and 13 (28%) were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Almost one-third (14 children; 30.4%) of the admitted patients were obese, and almost one-quarter (11 children; 24.4%) had asthma, but neither factor was associated with an increased risk for PICU admission.

“We know that in adults, obesity is a risk factor for more severe disease, however, surprisingly, our study found that children admitted to the intensive care unit did not have a higher prevalence of obesity than those on the general unit,” Dr. Chao said in the news release.

Three of the PICU patients (25%) had preexisting seizure disorders, as did one (3%) patient on the general medical unit. “There was no significant difference in the usage of ibuprofen prior to hospitalization among patients admitted to medical unit compared with those admitted to the PICU,” the authors wrote.

Platelet counts were lower in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those on the general medical unit; however, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and pro–brain natriuretic peptide levels were all elevated in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those admitted to the general medical unit.

Patients admitted to the PICU were more likely to need high-flow nasal cannula. Ten (77%) patients in the PICU developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and six (46.2%) of them needed “invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 9 days.”

The only clinical symptom significantly linked to PICU admission was shortness of breath (92.3% vs 30.3%; P < .001).

Eight (61.5%) of the 13 patients treated in the PICU were discharged to home; four (30.7%) were still hospitalized and receiving ventilatory support on day 14. One patient had metastatic cancer and died as a result of the cancer after life-sustaining therapy was withdrawn.

Those admitted to the PICU were more likely to receive treatment with remdesivir via compassionate use compared with those treated in the general medical unit. Seven (53.8%) patients in the PICU developed severe sepsis and septic shock syndromes.

The average hospital stay was 4 days longer for the children admitted to the PICU than for the children admitted to the general medical unit.

Cough (63%) and fever (60.9%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at admission. The median duration of symptoms before admission was 3 days. None of the children had traveled to an area affected by COVID-19 before becoming ill, and only 20 (43.5%) children were confirmed to have had contact with someone with COVID-19. “The lack of a known sick contact reported in our study may have implications for how healthcare providers identify and screen for potential cases,” the authors explained.

Although children are believed to experience milder SARS-CoV-2 illness, these results and those of an earlier study suggest that some pediatric patients develop illness severe enough to require PICU admission. “This subset had significantly higher markers of inflammation (CRP, pro-BNP, procalcitonin) compared with patients in the medical unit. Inflammation likely contributed to the high rate of ARDS we observed, although serum levels of IL-6 and other cytokines linked to ARDS were not determined,” the authors wrote.

A retrospective cohort study found that of 177 children and young adults treated in a single center, patients younger than 1 year and older than 15 years were more likely to become critically ill with COVID-19 (J Pediatr. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007).

Each of the two age groups accounted for 32% of the hospitalized patients.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Children with COVID-19 are more likely to develop severe illness and require intensive care than previously realized, data from a single-center study suggest.

Jerry Y. Chao, MD, of the department of anesthesiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported their findings in an article published online May 11 in the Journal of Pediatrics.

“Thankfully most children with COVID-19 fare well, and some do not have any symptoms at all, but this research is a sobering reminder that children are not immune to this virus and some do require a higher level of care,” senior author Shivanand S. Medar, MD, FAAP, attending physician, Cardiac Intensive Care, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, and assistant professor of pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in a Montefiore Medical Center news release.

The study included 67 patients aged 1 month to 21 years (median, 13.1 years) who were treated for COVID-19 at a tertiary care children’s hospital between March 15 and April 13. Of those, 21 (31.3%) were treated as outpatients.

“As the number of patients screened for COVID-19 was restricted during the first weeks of the outbreak because of limited testing availability, the number of mildly symptomatic patients is not known, and therefore these 21 patients are not included in the analysis,” the authors wrote.

Of the 46 hospitalized patients, 33 (72%) were admitted to a general pediatric medical ward, and 13 (28%) were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Almost one-third (14 children; 30.4%) of the admitted patients were obese, and almost one-quarter (11 children; 24.4%) had asthma, but neither factor was associated with an increased risk for PICU admission.

“We know that in adults, obesity is a risk factor for more severe disease, however, surprisingly, our study found that children admitted to the intensive care unit did not have a higher prevalence of obesity than those on the general unit,” Dr. Chao said in the news release.

Three of the PICU patients (25%) had preexisting seizure disorders, as did one (3%) patient on the general medical unit. “There was no significant difference in the usage of ibuprofen prior to hospitalization among patients admitted to medical unit compared with those admitted to the PICU,” the authors wrote.

Platelet counts were lower in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those on the general medical unit; however, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and pro–brain natriuretic peptide levels were all elevated in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those admitted to the general medical unit.

Patients admitted to the PICU were more likely to need high-flow nasal cannula. Ten (77%) patients in the PICU developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and six (46.2%) of them needed “invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 9 days.”

The only clinical symptom significantly linked to PICU admission was shortness of breath (92.3% vs 30.3%; P < .001).

Eight (61.5%) of the 13 patients treated in the PICU were discharged to home; four (30.7%) were still hospitalized and receiving ventilatory support on day 14. One patient had metastatic cancer and died as a result of the cancer after life-sustaining therapy was withdrawn.

Those admitted to the PICU were more likely to receive treatment with remdesivir via compassionate use compared with those treated in the general medical unit. Seven (53.8%) patients in the PICU developed severe sepsis and septic shock syndromes.

The average hospital stay was 4 days longer for the children admitted to the PICU than for the children admitted to the general medical unit.

Cough (63%) and fever (60.9%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at admission. The median duration of symptoms before admission was 3 days. None of the children had traveled to an area affected by COVID-19 before becoming ill, and only 20 (43.5%) children were confirmed to have had contact with someone with COVID-19. “The lack of a known sick contact reported in our study may have implications for how healthcare providers identify and screen for potential cases,” the authors explained.

Although children are believed to experience milder SARS-CoV-2 illness, these results and those of an earlier study suggest that some pediatric patients develop illness severe enough to require PICU admission. “This subset had significantly higher markers of inflammation (CRP, pro-BNP, procalcitonin) compared with patients in the medical unit. Inflammation likely contributed to the high rate of ARDS we observed, although serum levels of IL-6 and other cytokines linked to ARDS were not determined,” the authors wrote.

A retrospective cohort study found that of 177 children and young adults treated in a single center, patients younger than 1 year and older than 15 years were more likely to become critically ill with COVID-19 (J Pediatr. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007).

Each of the two age groups accounted for 32% of the hospitalized patients.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Children with COVID-19 are more likely to develop severe illness and require intensive care than previously realized, data from a single-center study suggest.

Jerry Y. Chao, MD, of the department of anesthesiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported their findings in an article published online May 11 in the Journal of Pediatrics.

“Thankfully most children with COVID-19 fare well, and some do not have any symptoms at all, but this research is a sobering reminder that children are not immune to this virus and some do require a higher level of care,” senior author Shivanand S. Medar, MD, FAAP, attending physician, Cardiac Intensive Care, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, and assistant professor of pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in a Montefiore Medical Center news release.

The study included 67 patients aged 1 month to 21 years (median, 13.1 years) who were treated for COVID-19 at a tertiary care children’s hospital between March 15 and April 13. Of those, 21 (31.3%) were treated as outpatients.

“As the number of patients screened for COVID-19 was restricted during the first weeks of the outbreak because of limited testing availability, the number of mildly symptomatic patients is not known, and therefore these 21 patients are not included in the analysis,” the authors wrote.

Of the 46 hospitalized patients, 33 (72%) were admitted to a general pediatric medical ward, and 13 (28%) were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Almost one-third (14 children; 30.4%) of the admitted patients were obese, and almost one-quarter (11 children; 24.4%) had asthma, but neither factor was associated with an increased risk for PICU admission.

“We know that in adults, obesity is a risk factor for more severe disease, however, surprisingly, our study found that children admitted to the intensive care unit did not have a higher prevalence of obesity than those on the general unit,” Dr. Chao said in the news release.

Three of the PICU patients (25%) had preexisting seizure disorders, as did one (3%) patient on the general medical unit. “There was no significant difference in the usage of ibuprofen prior to hospitalization among patients admitted to medical unit compared with those admitted to the PICU,” the authors wrote.

Platelet counts were lower in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those on the general medical unit; however, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and pro–brain natriuretic peptide levels were all elevated in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those admitted to the general medical unit.

Patients admitted to the PICU were more likely to need high-flow nasal cannula. Ten (77%) patients in the PICU developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and six (46.2%) of them needed “invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 9 days.”

The only clinical symptom significantly linked to PICU admission was shortness of breath (92.3% vs 30.3%; P < .001).

Eight (61.5%) of the 13 patients treated in the PICU were discharged to home; four (30.7%) were still hospitalized and receiving ventilatory support on day 14. One patient had metastatic cancer and died as a result of the cancer after life-sustaining therapy was withdrawn.

Those admitted to the PICU were more likely to receive treatment with remdesivir via compassionate use compared with those treated in the general medical unit. Seven (53.8%) patients in the PICU developed severe sepsis and septic shock syndromes.

The average hospital stay was 4 days longer for the children admitted to the PICU than for the children admitted to the general medical unit.

Cough (63%) and fever (60.9%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at admission. The median duration of symptoms before admission was 3 days. None of the children had traveled to an area affected by COVID-19 before becoming ill, and only 20 (43.5%) children were confirmed to have had contact with someone with COVID-19. “The lack of a known sick contact reported in our study may have implications for how healthcare providers identify and screen for potential cases,” the authors explained.

Although children are believed to experience milder SARS-CoV-2 illness, these results and those of an earlier study suggest that some pediatric patients develop illness severe enough to require PICU admission. “This subset had significantly higher markers of inflammation (CRP, pro-BNP, procalcitonin) compared with patients in the medical unit. Inflammation likely contributed to the high rate of ARDS we observed, although serum levels of IL-6 and other cytokines linked to ARDS were not determined,” the authors wrote.

A retrospective cohort study found that of 177 children and young adults treated in a single center, patients younger than 1 year and older than 15 years were more likely to become critically ill with COVID-19 (J Pediatr. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007).

Each of the two age groups accounted for 32% of the hospitalized patients.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

One of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the failure of health policy makers to anticipate and mitigate the enormous havoc the policy of social distancing would wreak on mental health and cognitive function in older persons, speakers agreed at a webinar on COVID-19, social distancing, and its impact on social and mental health in the elderly hosted by the International Psychogeriatric Association in collaboration with INTERDEM.

iofoto/Thinkstock

“Social distancing” is a two-edged sword: It is for now and the foreseeable future the only available effective strategy for protecting against infection in the older population most vulnerable to severe forms of COVID-19. Yet social distancing also has caused many elderly – particularly those in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities – to plunge into a profound experience of loneliness, isolation, distress, feelings of abandonment, anxiety, depression, and accelerated cognitive deterioration. And this needn’t have happened, the mental health professionals asserted.

“When are we going to get rid of the term ‘social distancing?’ ” asked IPA President William E. Reichman, MD. “Many have appreciated – including the World Health Organization – that the real issue is physical distancing to prevent contagion. And physical distancing doesn’t have to mean social distancing.”

Social connectedness between elderly persons and their peers and family members can be maintained and should be emphatically encouraged during the physical distancing required by the pandemic, said Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers.

This can be achieved using readily available technologies, including the telephone and videoconferencing, as well as by creating opportunities for supervised masked visits between a family member and an elderly loved one in outdoor courtyards or gardens within long-term care facilities. And yet, as the pandemic seized hold in many parts of the world, family members were blocked from entry to these facilities, she observed.
 

Impact on mental health, cognition

Dr. Vernooij-Dassen noted that studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly.

“A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said.

INTERDEM is backing two ongoing studies evaluating the hypothesis that interventions fostering increased social interaction among elderly individuals can delay onset of dementia or favorably affect its course. The proposed mechanism of benefit is stimulation of brain plasticity to enhance cognitive reserve.

“This is a hypothesis of hope. We know that social interaction for humans is like water to plants – we really, really need it,” she explained.

Diego de Leo, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of psychiatry and former director of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University in Brisbane, was living in hard-hit Padua, Italy, during the first surge of COVID-19. He described his anecdotal experience.

“What I hear from many Italian colleagues and friends and directors of mental health services is that emergency admissions related to mental disorders declined during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. For example, not many people attended emergency departments due to suicide attempts; there was a very marked decrease in the number of suicide attempts during the worst days of the pandemic,” he said.

People with psychiatric conditions were afraid to go to the hospital because they thought they would contract the infection and die there. That’s changing now, however.

“Now there is an increased number of admissions to mental health units. A new wave. It has been a U-shaped curve. And we’re now witnessing an increasing number of fatal suicides due to persistent fears, due to people imagining that there is no more room for them, and no more future for them from a financial point of view – which is the major negative outcome of this crisis. It will be a disaster for many families,” the psychiatrist continued.

A noteworthy phenomenon in northern Italy was that, when tablets were made available to nursing home residents in an effort to enhance their connectedness to the outside world, those with dementia often became so frustrated and confused by their difficulty in using the devices that they developed a hypokinetic delirium marked by refusal to eat or leave their bed, he reported.

It’s far too early to have reliable data on suicide trends in response to the pandemic, according to Dr. de Leo. But one thing is for sure: The strategy of social distancing employed to curb COVID-19 has increased the prevalence of known risk factors for suicide in older individuals, including loneliness, anxiety, and depression; increased alcohol use; and a perception of being a burden on society. Dr. de Leo directs a foundation dedicated to helping people experiencing traumatic bereavement, and in one recent week, the foundation was contacted by eight families in the province of Padua with a recent death by suicide apparently related to fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s an unusually high spike in suicide in a province with a population of 1 million.

“People probably preferred to end the agitation, the fear, the extreme anxiety about their destiny by deciding to prematurely truncate their life. That has been reported by nursing staff,” he said.

The Italian government has determined that, to date, 36% of all COVID-related deaths have occurred in people aged 85 years or older, and 84% of deaths were in individuals aged at least 70 years. And in Milan and the surrounding province of Lombardy, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has taken the lives of 25% of all nursing home residents. The North American experience has been uncomfortably similar.

“Almost 80% of COVID deaths in Canada have occurred in congregate settings,” observed Dr. Reichman, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and president and CEO of Baycrest Health Sciences, a geriatric research center.

“Certainly, the appalling number of deaths in nursing homes is the No. 1 horror of the pandemic,” declared Carmelle Peisah, MBBS, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of New South Wales in Kensington, Australia.
 

The fire next time

The conventional wisdom holds that COVID-19 has caused all sorts of mayhem in the delivery of elder care. Not so, in Dr. Reichman’s view.

“I would suggest that the pandemic has not caused many of the problems we talk about, it’s actually revealed problems that have always been there under the surface. For example, many older people, even before COVID-19, were socially isolated, socially distant. They had difficulty connecting with their relatives, difficulty accessing transportation to get to the store to buy food and see their doctors, and to interact with other older people,” the psychiatrist said.

“I would say as well that the pandemic didn’t cause the problems we’ve seen in long-term congregate senior care. The pandemic revealed them. We’ve had facilities where older people were severely crowded together, which compromises their quality of life, even when there’s not a pandemic. We’ve had difficulty staffing these kinds of environments with people that are paid an honest wage for the very hard work that they do. In many of these settings they’re inadequately trained, not only in infection prevention and control but in all other aspects of care. And the pandemic has revealed that many of these organizations are not properly funded. The government doesn’t support them well enough across jurisdictions, and they can’t raise enough philanthropic funds to provide the kind of quality of life that residents demand,” Dr. Reichman continued.

Could the pandemic spur improved elder care? His hope is that health care professionals, politicians, and society at large will learn from the devastation left by the first surge of the pandemic and will lobby for the resources necessary for much-needed improvements in geriatric care.

“We need to be better prepared should there be not only a second wave of this pandemic, but for other pandemics to come,” Dr. Reichman concluded.

The speakers indicated they had no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

[email protected]

One of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the failure of health policy makers to anticipate and mitigate the enormous havoc the policy of social distancing would wreak on mental health and cognitive function in older persons, speakers agreed at a webinar on COVID-19, social distancing, and its impact on social and mental health in the elderly hosted by the International Psychogeriatric Association in collaboration with INTERDEM.

iofoto/Thinkstock

“Social distancing” is a two-edged sword: It is for now and the foreseeable future the only available effective strategy for protecting against infection in the older population most vulnerable to severe forms of COVID-19. Yet social distancing also has caused many elderly – particularly those in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities – to plunge into a profound experience of loneliness, isolation, distress, feelings of abandonment, anxiety, depression, and accelerated cognitive deterioration. And this needn’t have happened, the mental health professionals asserted.

“When are we going to get rid of the term ‘social distancing?’ ” asked IPA President William E. Reichman, MD. “Many have appreciated – including the World Health Organization – that the real issue is physical distancing to prevent contagion. And physical distancing doesn’t have to mean social distancing.”

Social connectedness between elderly persons and their peers and family members can be maintained and should be emphatically encouraged during the physical distancing required by the pandemic, said Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers.

This can be achieved using readily available technologies, including the telephone and videoconferencing, as well as by creating opportunities for supervised masked visits between a family member and an elderly loved one in outdoor courtyards or gardens within long-term care facilities. And yet, as the pandemic seized hold in many parts of the world, family members were blocked from entry to these facilities, she observed.
 

Impact on mental health, cognition

Dr. Vernooij-Dassen noted that studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly.

“A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said.

INTERDEM is backing two ongoing studies evaluating the hypothesis that interventions fostering increased social interaction among elderly individuals can delay onset of dementia or favorably affect its course. The proposed mechanism of benefit is stimulation of brain plasticity to enhance cognitive reserve.

“This is a hypothesis of hope. We know that social interaction for humans is like water to plants – we really, really need it,” she explained.

Diego de Leo, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of psychiatry and former director of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University in Brisbane, was living in hard-hit Padua, Italy, during the first surge of COVID-19. He described his anecdotal experience.

“What I hear from many Italian colleagues and friends and directors of mental health services is that emergency admissions related to mental disorders declined during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. For example, not many people attended emergency departments due to suicide attempts; there was a very marked decrease in the number of suicide attempts during the worst days of the pandemic,” he said.

People with psychiatric conditions were afraid to go to the hospital because they thought they would contract the infection and die there. That’s changing now, however.

“Now there is an increased number of admissions to mental health units. A new wave. It has been a U-shaped curve. And we’re now witnessing an increasing number of fatal suicides due to persistent fears, due to people imagining that there is no more room for them, and no more future for them from a financial point of view – which is the major negative outcome of this crisis. It will be a disaster for many families,” the psychiatrist continued.

A noteworthy phenomenon in northern Italy was that, when tablets were made available to nursing home residents in an effort to enhance their connectedness to the outside world, those with dementia often became so frustrated and confused by their difficulty in using the devices that they developed a hypokinetic delirium marked by refusal to eat or leave their bed, he reported.

It’s far too early to have reliable data on suicide trends in response to the pandemic, according to Dr. de Leo. But one thing is for sure: The strategy of social distancing employed to curb COVID-19 has increased the prevalence of known risk factors for suicide in older individuals, including loneliness, anxiety, and depression; increased alcohol use; and a perception of being a burden on society. Dr. de Leo directs a foundation dedicated to helping people experiencing traumatic bereavement, and in one recent week, the foundation was contacted by eight families in the province of Padua with a recent death by suicide apparently related to fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s an unusually high spike in suicide in a province with a population of 1 million.

“People probably preferred to end the agitation, the fear, the extreme anxiety about their destiny by deciding to prematurely truncate their life. That has been reported by nursing staff,” he said.

The Italian government has determined that, to date, 36% of all COVID-related deaths have occurred in people aged 85 years or older, and 84% of deaths were in individuals aged at least 70 years. And in Milan and the surrounding province of Lombardy, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has taken the lives of 25% of all nursing home residents. The North American experience has been uncomfortably similar.

“Almost 80% of COVID deaths in Canada have occurred in congregate settings,” observed Dr. Reichman, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and president and CEO of Baycrest Health Sciences, a geriatric research center.

“Certainly, the appalling number of deaths in nursing homes is the No. 1 horror of the pandemic,” declared Carmelle Peisah, MBBS, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of New South Wales in Kensington, Australia.
 

The fire next time

The conventional wisdom holds that COVID-19 has caused all sorts of mayhem in the delivery of elder care. Not so, in Dr. Reichman’s view.

“I would suggest that the pandemic has not caused many of the problems we talk about, it’s actually revealed problems that have always been there under the surface. For example, many older people, even before COVID-19, were socially isolated, socially distant. They had difficulty connecting with their relatives, difficulty accessing transportation to get to the store to buy food and see their doctors, and to interact with other older people,” the psychiatrist said.

“I would say as well that the pandemic didn’t cause the problems we’ve seen in long-term congregate senior care. The pandemic revealed them. We’ve had facilities where older people were severely crowded together, which compromises their quality of life, even when there’s not a pandemic. We’ve had difficulty staffing these kinds of environments with people that are paid an honest wage for the very hard work that they do. In many of these settings they’re inadequately trained, not only in infection prevention and control but in all other aspects of care. And the pandemic has revealed that many of these organizations are not properly funded. The government doesn’t support them well enough across jurisdictions, and they can’t raise enough philanthropic funds to provide the kind of quality of life that residents demand,” Dr. Reichman continued.

Could the pandemic spur improved elder care? His hope is that health care professionals, politicians, and society at large will learn from the devastation left by the first surge of the pandemic and will lobby for the resources necessary for much-needed improvements in geriatric care.

“We need to be better prepared should there be not only a second wave of this pandemic, but for other pandemics to come,” Dr. Reichman concluded.

The speakers indicated they had no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

[email protected]

One of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the failure of health policy makers to anticipate and mitigate the enormous havoc the policy of social distancing would wreak on mental health and cognitive function in older persons, speakers agreed at a webinar on COVID-19, social distancing, and its impact on social and mental health in the elderly hosted by the International Psychogeriatric Association in collaboration with INTERDEM.

iofoto/Thinkstock

“Social distancing” is a two-edged sword: It is for now and the foreseeable future the only available effective strategy for protecting against infection in the older population most vulnerable to severe forms of COVID-19. Yet social distancing also has caused many elderly – particularly those in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities – to plunge into a profound experience of loneliness, isolation, distress, feelings of abandonment, anxiety, depression, and accelerated cognitive deterioration. And this needn’t have happened, the mental health professionals asserted.

“When are we going to get rid of the term ‘social distancing?’ ” asked IPA President William E. Reichman, MD. “Many have appreciated – including the World Health Organization – that the real issue is physical distancing to prevent contagion. And physical distancing doesn’t have to mean social distancing.”

Social connectedness between elderly persons and their peers and family members can be maintained and should be emphatically encouraged during the physical distancing required by the pandemic, said Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers.

This can be achieved using readily available technologies, including the telephone and videoconferencing, as well as by creating opportunities for supervised masked visits between a family member and an elderly loved one in outdoor courtyards or gardens within long-term care facilities. And yet, as the pandemic seized hold in many parts of the world, family members were blocked from entry to these facilities, she observed.
 

Impact on mental health, cognition

Dr. Vernooij-Dassen noted that studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly.

“A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said.

INTERDEM is backing two ongoing studies evaluating the hypothesis that interventions fostering increased social interaction among elderly individuals can delay onset of dementia or favorably affect its course. The proposed mechanism of benefit is stimulation of brain plasticity to enhance cognitive reserve.

“This is a hypothesis of hope. We know that social interaction for humans is like water to plants – we really, really need it,” she explained.

Diego de Leo, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of psychiatry and former director of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University in Brisbane, was living in hard-hit Padua, Italy, during the first surge of COVID-19. He described his anecdotal experience.

“What I hear from many Italian colleagues and friends and directors of mental health services is that emergency admissions related to mental disorders declined during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. For example, not many people attended emergency departments due to suicide attempts; there was a very marked decrease in the number of suicide attempts during the worst days of the pandemic,” he said.

People with psychiatric conditions were afraid to go to the hospital because they thought they would contract the infection and die there. That’s changing now, however.

“Now there is an increased number of admissions to mental health units. A new wave. It has been a U-shaped curve. And we’re now witnessing an increasing number of fatal suicides due to persistent fears, due to people imagining that there is no more room for them, and no more future for them from a financial point of view – which is the major negative outcome of this crisis. It will be a disaster for many families,” the psychiatrist continued.

A noteworthy phenomenon in northern Italy was that, when tablets were made available to nursing home residents in an effort to enhance their connectedness to the outside world, those with dementia often became so frustrated and confused by their difficulty in using the devices that they developed a hypokinetic delirium marked by refusal to eat or leave their bed, he reported.

It’s far too early to have reliable data on suicide trends in response to the pandemic, according to Dr. de Leo. But one thing is for sure: The strategy of social distancing employed to curb COVID-19 has increased the prevalence of known risk factors for suicide in older individuals, including loneliness, anxiety, and depression; increased alcohol use; and a perception of being a burden on society. Dr. de Leo directs a foundation dedicated to helping people experiencing traumatic bereavement, and in one recent week, the foundation was contacted by eight families in the province of Padua with a recent death by suicide apparently related to fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s an unusually high spike in suicide in a province with a population of 1 million.

“People probably preferred to end the agitation, the fear, the extreme anxiety about their destiny by deciding to prematurely truncate their life. That has been reported by nursing staff,” he said.

The Italian government has determined that, to date, 36% of all COVID-related deaths have occurred in people aged 85 years or older, and 84% of deaths were in individuals aged at least 70 years. And in Milan and the surrounding province of Lombardy, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has taken the lives of 25% of all nursing home residents. The North American experience has been uncomfortably similar.

“Almost 80% of COVID deaths in Canada have occurred in congregate settings,” observed Dr. Reichman, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and president and CEO of Baycrest Health Sciences, a geriatric research center.

“Certainly, the appalling number of deaths in nursing homes is the No. 1 horror of the pandemic,” declared Carmelle Peisah, MBBS, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of New South Wales in Kensington, Australia.
 

The fire next time

The conventional wisdom holds that COVID-19 has caused all sorts of mayhem in the delivery of elder care. Not so, in Dr. Reichman’s view.

“I would suggest that the pandemic has not caused many of the problems we talk about, it’s actually revealed problems that have always been there under the surface. For example, many older people, even before COVID-19, were socially isolated, socially distant. They had difficulty connecting with their relatives, difficulty accessing transportation to get to the store to buy food and see their doctors, and to interact with other older people,” the psychiatrist said.

“I would say as well that the pandemic didn’t cause the problems we’ve seen in long-term congregate senior care. The pandemic revealed them. We’ve had facilities where older people were severely crowded together, which compromises their quality of life, even when there’s not a pandemic. We’ve had difficulty staffing these kinds of environments with people that are paid an honest wage for the very hard work that they do. In many of these settings they’re inadequately trained, not only in infection prevention and control but in all other aspects of care. And the pandemic has revealed that many of these organizations are not properly funded. The government doesn’t support them well enough across jurisdictions, and they can’t raise enough philanthropic funds to provide the kind of quality of life that residents demand,” Dr. Reichman continued.

Could the pandemic spur improved elder care? His hope is that health care professionals, politicians, and society at large will learn from the devastation left by the first surge of the pandemic and will lobby for the resources necessary for much-needed improvements in geriatric care.

“We need to be better prepared should there be not only a second wave of this pandemic, but for other pandemics to come,” Dr. Reichman concluded.

The speakers indicated they had no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

[email protected]

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.

Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.

“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
 

‘Inconclusive’ evidence

The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.

Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.

“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.

They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.

Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).

The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.

Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).

Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
 

Comorbidities and underlying conditions

The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.

“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.

No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
 

As good as it gets

“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.

Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.

After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.

Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).

“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.

“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.

“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.

“Let the science speak for itself”

Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”

Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”

Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.

He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”

Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”

Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”

The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.

Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.

“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
 

‘Inconclusive’ evidence

The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.

Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.

“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.

They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.

Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).

The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.

Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).

Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
 

Comorbidities and underlying conditions

The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.

“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.

No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
 

As good as it gets

“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.

Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.

After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.

Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).

“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.

“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.

“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.

“Let the science speak for itself”

Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”

Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”

Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.

He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”

Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”

Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”

The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.

Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.

“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
 

‘Inconclusive’ evidence

The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.

Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.

“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.

They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.

Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).

The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.

Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).

Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
 

Comorbidities and underlying conditions

The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.

“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.

No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
 

As good as it gets

“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.

Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.

After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.

Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).

“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.

“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.

“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.

“Let the science speak for itself”

Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”

Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”

Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.

He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”

Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”

Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”

The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.