COVID-19 Updates

Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.

Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.

The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.

The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.

That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.

Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”

Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.

So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.

To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.

If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.

Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.

“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”

Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.

“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”

The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”

The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.

“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.

The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.

Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.

Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.

The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.

The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.

That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.

Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”

Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.

So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.

To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.

If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.

Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.

“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”

Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.

“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”

The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”

The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.

“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.

The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.

Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.

Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.

The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.

The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.

That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.

Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”

Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.

So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.

To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.

If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.

Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.

“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”

Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.

“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”

The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”

The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.

“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.

The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.

The Biden administration has announced a massive federal effort to better understand, diagnose, and treat the crippling effects of long COVID.

The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.

“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”

The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.

The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.

The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.

Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.

New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.

“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.

Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.

Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.

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

The Biden administration has announced a massive federal effort to better understand, diagnose, and treat the crippling effects of long COVID.

The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.

“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”

The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.

The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.

The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.

Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.

New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.

“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.

Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.

Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.

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

The Biden administration has announced a massive federal effort to better understand, diagnose, and treat the crippling effects of long COVID.

The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.

“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”

The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.

The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.

The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.

Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.

New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.

“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.

Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.

Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.

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

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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

Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.

Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.

As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.

Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.

Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.

Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.

Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.

As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.

Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.

Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.

Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.

Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.

As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.

Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.

Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.

Patients with persistent cognitive impairment months after illness with mild COVID-19 have higher levels of inflammatory markers in their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Inflammatory response

There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.

Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.

All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.

Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.

The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.

The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).

Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.

Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.

“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
 

Moving the needle forward

Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.

“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”

Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.

“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”

Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.

“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with persistent cognitive impairment months after illness with mild COVID-19 have higher levels of inflammatory markers in their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Inflammatory response

There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.

Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.

All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.

Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.

The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.

The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).

Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.

Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.

“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
 

Moving the needle forward

Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.

“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”

Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.

“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”

Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.

“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with persistent cognitive impairment months after illness with mild COVID-19 have higher levels of inflammatory markers in their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Inflammatory response

There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.

Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.

All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.

Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.

The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.

The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).

Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.

Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.

“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
 

Moving the needle forward

Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.

“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”

Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.

“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”

Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.

“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

COVID-19 affected all aspects of psychiatric care. As a psychiatrist who is also a psychoanalyst, I faced some unique challenges to caring for my patients during the pandemic. In this article, I describe how COVID-19 impacted my practice, and how I adjusted to ensure that my patients received the best possible care.

The loss of ‘normal’

Our recognition of the loss was not immediate since no one knew what to expect. From March 11, 2020 through the end of the warm weather, when we could be outdoors, personal life was still gratifying. There was even a new spirit of togetherness in my neighborhood, with people seamlessly cooperating by crossing the street to avoid getting too close to one another, practicing proper social distancing in the grocery line, and smiling at everyone.

November 2020 through Spring 2021 was an unprecedented period of no socialization and spending time exclusively with my husband. By the end, I was finally aware of the exhaustion I felt trying to work with patients via phone and video sessions. Beyond that, we were (and still are) conducting administrative meetings and national organization meetings by video.

Spring 2021 until the arrival of cold weather felt more relaxed, as socializing outside again became possible. But from Winter 2021 to now has been a weary repeat of isolation, and a realization that my work life might never go back to “normal.” I would have to make peace with various sorts of losses of gratification in my work.

Life before COVID-19

I am a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in a group private practice near the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. As a former full-time faculty member there, I maintain some teaching and supervision of residents. I typically see patients from 8:30 AM until 6:30 PM, and for years have had an average of 5 patients in psychoanalysis on the couch for 3 to 4 sessions per week. I see some psychotherapy patients weekly or twice a week and have some hours for new diagnostic evaluations and medication management. In addition, as a faculty member of the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute, I take part in several committees, teach in the psychotherapy program and psychoanalytic training program, and supervise students and candidates. Most weeks, I see between 35 and 40 patients, with 4 to 6 weeks of vacation time per year.

Major changes with the onset of the pandemic

Once the threat from COVID-19 became clear in March 2020, I thought through my options. My office comprises 5 professional offices, a waiting room, and an administrative area. Our administrative assistant and 1 or 2 practitioners were in the office with me most days. We maintained appropriate distance from each another and wore masks in common areas. The practice group was exemplary in immediately setting up safe practices. I learned a few colleagues were seeing patients outside using lawn chairs in the back of our lot where there was some privacy, but many stopped coming to the building altogether.

I felt real sadness having to tell patients I could no longer see them in my office. However, I was relieved to find how quickly many patients made an immediate transition to telephone or video sessions. Since I was alone in my office and not distracted by barking dogs, ringing doorbells, or loud lawnmowers, I continued to come to the office, and never switched to working from home.

Since I was not vis-à-vis with patients on the couch, those sessions shifted to the telephone. I offered psychotherapy patients the option of video sessions via the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant Doximity app (doxy.me) or telephone, and found that approximately 75% preferred video. When I used the telephone, I used a professional-grade headset, which made it less onerous than being tied to a receiver, and I occasionally used the speaker option. I also installed a desk platform that allows me to raise and lower my computer from sitting to standing height.

I worried a great deal about patients I felt would do poorly with video or telephone sessions: older adults who found comfort in human contact that was sometimes curative, less well-integrated individuals who needed real contact in order to feel there was a treatment process, those with serious mental illnesses who needed reassurance at their reality-testing, and new patients who I couldn’t fully assess without in-person meetings.

In the beginning of the pandemic, as we were still learning about the virus, nothing seemed safe. We were washing our hands constantly, afraid to touch doorknobs, mail, or groceries. Thankfully, we learned that COVID-19 transmission occurs primarily through inhalation of droplets and particles containing the virus.¹ Masks, good ventilation, and adequate distance from others considerably cut infection rates. By January 2021, the availability of a vaccine made an enormous difference in vulnerability to severe illness.

When I stopped seeing patients in my office, I set up the conference room that had doors on either end so I could sit on one end of a table and have the patient at the other end, keeping about 8 feet between us. I also kept a fan blowing air away from me and parallel to the patient. After each session, I opened both doors to allow for full ventilation of the room. This provided a solution for the patients I knew I needed to meet with in person.

The following case examples illustrate how I provided care during this time. To protect patient anonymity, these vignettes are composites.

Psychotherapy patients 

Established patients in psychotherapy have seemed to work well with video or telephone sessions. The video option added a new element I never appreciated: seeing patients in their homes or cars allowed me to gain a new set of impressions about them. The use of technology is clearly another element I would not have identified before. Less technically adept older patients are likely to join a video session with only the top of their head visible, or with insufficient lighting. In some cases, I coached patients to rearrange their computer so I could see their faces, but only if it seemed that doing so would not cause them greater distress.

Ms. A, age 74, is a widow who retired from a high-level professional position 5 years ago. She was brought to the hospital due to ongoing anxiety, especially about her health. Ms. A maintained a wide range of relationships with friends, colleagues she mentored, and neighbors who provided a satisfying social network, and she continued to contribute to her field via scholarly writing projects. Before the pandemic, she found occasional sessions helpful in putting her health fears into perspective. When the pandemic led her to isolate at home, Ms. A became anxious and depressed to an unprecedented extent. Video sessions were unsatisfying, and she was terrified of taking tranquilizers or other medications. Once COVID-19 vaccinations became available and both she and I received both doses, we switched to meeting in the conference room every 2 to 3 weeks, with considerably better results.

Mr. B, age 41, is a single male who I diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 19 when he developed paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations. Mr. B was not interested in taking antipsychotic medications, and his situation did not improve even when he did try taking them. He volunteered at a local emergency department doing odd jobs—moving gurneys, cleaning rooms, hauling boxes of supplies—for many years, and had always been employed in jobs such as grocery stocking or janitorial work that did not involve extensive interactions with people. He repeatedly enrolled in programs that would provide a skill such as phlebotomy or medical billing, only to find that he was never hired for such work. We talked once a month for 30 minutes about his frustrations trying to find women to date and marry, and how he was repeatedly taken advantage of (one “date” from an escort service took him to an ATM and got him to withdraw most of the money in his account).

Coincident with COVID-19, Mr. B’s father died from widespread metastatic cancer. His father had been Mr. B’s guide, friend, payee for Social Security Disability Insurance funds, and source of advice. To provide humane and somewhat effective treatment, I saw Mr. B in the conference room. His capacity to express grief and distress at the loss of his father has been impressive, as has his initiative in finding a grief group to attend, which he has done consistently.

Several patients who had been seeing me for weekly psychotherapy chose not to continue, many without specifically informing me of their decision. I understood the situation was in flux, and it would not be clear to anyone what to expect for the future. To avoid pressuring anyone, I chose not to contact patients to inquire about their plans.

Ms. C, age 50, is a professional with 3 children whose marriage had been highly dissatisfying for years, and she was now ready to investigate it. She was very successful in her career, having taken on a leadership role in her firm and earning a high income, while her husband was erratic, unreliable, and self-absorbed. Though he was well-educated and competent in his field, he could not maintain employment in a corporate environment and worked as a consultant with relatively little success. Along with the hours she spent working, Ms. C took responsibility for the family finances, was the chief wage earner, managed the needs of their children, made sure meals were prepared, and took on many other responsibilities.

Continue to: Case examples: How it worked (cont.)...

We agreed to a weekly session that fit Ms. C’s schedule, and she seemed able to relax and talk about herself. I found Ms. C quite likeable and enjoyed meeting with her, though I worried about whether we would need a greater intensity to get at the reasons such a successful and intelligent woman would fear setting limits with her husband or even considering ending the relationship. The reasons were clear as we put together the story of her early life, but conviction only develops with full emotional awareness (transference provides this in psychoanalysis).

The pandemic started approximately 18 months into our work, and Ms. C disappeared. She called my administrative assistant to cancel further appointments but did not ask to speak with me directly. While I knew this might represent resistance, I also felt unwilling to pressure Ms. C if she chose not to continue. I remain hopeful that I will hear from her once again; if not, I will send a note by mail to say that I enjoyed working with her, am happy to see her again, and hope she found some benefit from our work.

Mr. D contacted me for psychotherapy following the death of his father, who I had seen as a patient many years earlier. I was aware of the likely impact of his father’s outsized personality and emotional dysregulation on Mr. D and agreed to meet with him. He had taken over the family business and had made it an even greater success, but had trouble feeling confident about setting limits with employees who he knew took advantage of his avoidance.

Mr. D and I met weekly for several months and then moved to every other week, a form of resistance I expected as we got closer to his feeling pain. At the same time, I recognize that many patients use this tactic to “dose” themselves with the intensity they can tolerate, and Mr. D was quite observant and able to pick up themes where we’d left off.

When the pandemic shut down office visits, Mr. D immediately agreed to video sessions, which he has continued at roughly the same frequency. While I miss sitting with him, we continue to make progress towards his goal of learning to see himself as able to compete with his father.

Psychoanalysis patients 

I found that patients in psychoanalysis had no trouble with the transition to telephone sessions, and the intensity of the work was not diluted. In some ways, audio-only communication is more intimate and might encourage patients to talk about topics they may not have otherwise brought up. I have not seen any evidence of less progress among these patients.

Dr. E, age 45, is a divorced physician who began psychoanalysis 3 times per week on the couch in 2018 for problems with frustration and confusion about his career, his identity as a father, and intense loneliness. He had worked up to 80 hours per week to earn as much money as he could, but also to avoid time at home with his then-wife and young children. The lack of time to recover led him to hate his work, left no time for social connections, and led to binges of heavy drinking. Our work had begun to allow him to develop a narrative about his early life that had never been considered, and to identify patterns of repetition of old defensive strategies that had never served him well.

At the onset of the pandemic, I told Dr. E that we would have to switch to telephone sessions, and he agreed immediately. In fact, he came to prefer telephone work since it spared him the 2 hours per day he had spent coming to my office. While I found it less satisfying than working in person, we have continued the same schedule and with the same intensity and trajectory established before the pandemic.

Continue to: Working with new patients...

Seeing new patients for diagnostic evaluation is always best done in person, because the information I gain from the patient’s appearance, clothing, demeanor, gait, postures, gesturing, and facial expressions (among other elements) gives me important impressions I miss with video or telephone. In many cases, patients gain a sense of who I am from sitting in my office, and using the conference room eliminates that benefit. I attempted to create a warm environment in the conference room by obtaining lamps that produce warmer indirect light and hanging artwork that reflects my tastes. There are clocks in places that allow me and my patient to keep track of time. In meeting new patients by video, I get some impressions about their surroundings that add to the information I get through our interview. I have done many diagnostic evaluations during the pandemic and gotten treatments (whether medication, psychotherapy, or both) underway without discernible problems in the outcomes. Patients who started with me in person have mostly wanted to continue with in-person meetings, but as many have told me, interspersed video sessions save them travel time.

What about vaccination?

Once COVID-19 vaccinations were widely available, I assumed patients would be as eager to get them as I had been. When I began asking patients about whether they had gotten their vaccines, I was surprised to hear that a few were not going to get vaccinated, clearly based on political views and misinformation about the danger of vaccines. (The topic of political beliefs and their impact on psychological treatment is beyond the scope of this commentary.) I tried to counter obvious misinformation, repeated my recommendation that the patient get vaccinated, and then turned to other topics. I later decided to tell all patients that vaccination was required to enter the office. Only 1 patient who had been coming to the office dropped out, and she eventually returned to meeting by video.

COVID-19’s toll on the therapist

While the first several months of the pandemic were so full of uncertainty about the future, once vaccinations were available, it seemed cause for hope of a return to normalcy. As time went on, however, it became clear that normal was still a long way off. With vaccine refusal and new variants upending my naïve view that we were near the end, I began to feel aware of the impact this had on me, and began to focus on self-care (Box). I had always seen myself as unusually lucky to have a full practice, a supportive partnership with my husband, grown children who didn’t need me to homeschool them, a strong social network of friends who could share the burden and cheer each other up at outdoor gatherings, and a wonderful group of siblings and in-laws (all in different cities) who stayed in touch via video calls and quarantined in advance of getting together in someone’s home.

Box

Staying busy and engaged with my practice, spouse, family, and friends kept sadness away most of the time. But I surprised myself a few months ago when I sat down to reflect and check in with myself. I felt enormous loss, resentment, and exhaustion at the privations of the pandemic: every trip to the grocery story felt dangerous. I hadn’t seen the inside of a concert hall, movie theater, restaurant, or museum in nearly 2 years. Travel for meetings and visits to family and friends and various adventures had been abruptly stopped. I lost both parents (not to COVID-19) during 2020; both were older adults living in senior communities that could not allow visitors. The usual grieving process would include attending services at my synagogue where I could say Kaddish for them, and video services were simply not tolerable.

Most of us have become experts at video meetings and likely have come to despise them. While our Institute has always held classes with some out-of-town students joining by video, with a very sophisticated system that provides excellent sound and visual fidelity, teaching entirely by video is another matter. I now teach students I have never met in person and might not recognize if I passed them in public. The art of creating discussion around a table is much more difficult on a computer screen. The first class I taught to residents during the pandemic was completely disorienting as I faced a wall of black screens with names and silence. Each student had turned off their camera and muted their microphone, so I was lecturing to a computer. That never happened again after I insisted on seeing everyone’s face and hearing their voices.

Thankfully, my usual experience of a long day seeing patients followed by chatting while cooking dinner with my husband and walking the dogs before settling down to read didn’t change. But the pleasure of sitting with patients was replaced by the daily grind of figuring out who will need a video link, who will be on the telephone, and who will come to the office, and it doesn’t feel the same. Again, in the big picture, I realize how fortunate I have been, but it’s been a big change in the world of the psychotherapist.

COVID-19 affected all aspects of psychiatric care. As a psychiatrist who is also a psychoanalyst, I faced some unique challenges to caring for my patients during the pandemic. In this article, I describe how COVID-19 impacted my practice, and how I adjusted to ensure that my patients received the best possible care.

The loss of ‘normal’

Our recognition of the loss was not immediate since no one knew what to expect. From March 11, 2020 through the end of the warm weather, when we could be outdoors, personal life was still gratifying. There was even a new spirit of togetherness in my neighborhood, with people seamlessly cooperating by crossing the street to avoid getting too close to one another, practicing proper social distancing in the grocery line, and smiling at everyone.

November 2020 through Spring 2021 was an unprecedented period of no socialization and spending time exclusively with my husband. By the end, I was finally aware of the exhaustion I felt trying to work with patients via phone and video sessions. Beyond that, we were (and still are) conducting administrative meetings and national organization meetings by video.

Spring 2021 until the arrival of cold weather felt more relaxed, as socializing outside again became possible. But from Winter 2021 to now has been a weary repeat of isolation, and a realization that my work life might never go back to “normal.” I would have to make peace with various sorts of losses of gratification in my work.

Life before COVID-19

I am a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in a group private practice near the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. As a former full-time faculty member there, I maintain some teaching and supervision of residents. I typically see patients from 8:30 AM until 6:30 PM, and for years have had an average of 5 patients in psychoanalysis on the couch for 3 to 4 sessions per week. I see some psychotherapy patients weekly or twice a week and have some hours for new diagnostic evaluations and medication management. In addition, as a faculty member of the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute, I take part in several committees, teach in the psychotherapy program and psychoanalytic training program, and supervise students and candidates. Most weeks, I see between 35 and 40 patients, with 4 to 6 weeks of vacation time per year.

Major changes with the onset of the pandemic

Once the threat from COVID-19 became clear in March 2020, I thought through my options. My office comprises 5 professional offices, a waiting room, and an administrative area. Our administrative assistant and 1 or 2 practitioners were in the office with me most days. We maintained appropriate distance from each another and wore masks in common areas. The practice group was exemplary in immediately setting up safe practices. I learned a few colleagues were seeing patients outside using lawn chairs in the back of our lot where there was some privacy, but many stopped coming to the building altogether.

I felt real sadness having to tell patients I could no longer see them in my office. However, I was relieved to find how quickly many patients made an immediate transition to telephone or video sessions. Since I was alone in my office and not distracted by barking dogs, ringing doorbells, or loud lawnmowers, I continued to come to the office, and never switched to working from home.

Since I was not vis-à-vis with patients on the couch, those sessions shifted to the telephone. I offered psychotherapy patients the option of video sessions via the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant Doximity app (doxy.me) or telephone, and found that approximately 75% preferred video. When I used the telephone, I used a professional-grade headset, which made it less onerous than being tied to a receiver, and I occasionally used the speaker option. I also installed a desk platform that allows me to raise and lower my computer from sitting to standing height.

I worried a great deal about patients I felt would do poorly with video or telephone sessions: older adults who found comfort in human contact that was sometimes curative, less well-integrated individuals who needed real contact in order to feel there was a treatment process, those with serious mental illnesses who needed reassurance at their reality-testing, and new patients who I couldn’t fully assess without in-person meetings.

In the beginning of the pandemic, as we were still learning about the virus, nothing seemed safe. We were washing our hands constantly, afraid to touch doorknobs, mail, or groceries. Thankfully, we learned that COVID-19 transmission occurs primarily through inhalation of droplets and particles containing the virus.¹ Masks, good ventilation, and adequate distance from others considerably cut infection rates. By January 2021, the availability of a vaccine made an enormous difference in vulnerability to severe illness.

When I stopped seeing patients in my office, I set up the conference room that had doors on either end so I could sit on one end of a table and have the patient at the other end, keeping about 8 feet between us. I also kept a fan blowing air away from me and parallel to the patient. After each session, I opened both doors to allow for full ventilation of the room. This provided a solution for the patients I knew I needed to meet with in person.

The following case examples illustrate how I provided care during this time. To protect patient anonymity, these vignettes are composites.

Psychotherapy patients 

Established patients in psychotherapy have seemed to work well with video or telephone sessions. The video option added a new element I never appreciated: seeing patients in their homes or cars allowed me to gain a new set of impressions about them. The use of technology is clearly another element I would not have identified before. Less technically adept older patients are likely to join a video session with only the top of their head visible, or with insufficient lighting. In some cases, I coached patients to rearrange their computer so I could see their faces, but only if it seemed that doing so would not cause them greater distress.

Ms. A, age 74, is a widow who retired from a high-level professional position 5 years ago. She was brought to the hospital due to ongoing anxiety, especially about her health. Ms. A maintained a wide range of relationships with friends, colleagues she mentored, and neighbors who provided a satisfying social network, and she continued to contribute to her field via scholarly writing projects. Before the pandemic, she found occasional sessions helpful in putting her health fears into perspective. When the pandemic led her to isolate at home, Ms. A became anxious and depressed to an unprecedented extent. Video sessions were unsatisfying, and she was terrified of taking tranquilizers or other medications. Once COVID-19 vaccinations became available and both she and I received both doses, we switched to meeting in the conference room every 2 to 3 weeks, with considerably better results.

Mr. B, age 41, is a single male who I diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 19 when he developed paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations. Mr. B was not interested in taking antipsychotic medications, and his situation did not improve even when he did try taking them. He volunteered at a local emergency department doing odd jobs—moving gurneys, cleaning rooms, hauling boxes of supplies—for many years, and had always been employed in jobs such as grocery stocking or janitorial work that did not involve extensive interactions with people. He repeatedly enrolled in programs that would provide a skill such as phlebotomy or medical billing, only to find that he was never hired for such work. We talked once a month for 30 minutes about his frustrations trying to find women to date and marry, and how he was repeatedly taken advantage of (one “date” from an escort service took him to an ATM and got him to withdraw most of the money in his account).

Coincident with COVID-19, Mr. B’s father died from widespread metastatic cancer. His father had been Mr. B’s guide, friend, payee for Social Security Disability Insurance funds, and source of advice. To provide humane and somewhat effective treatment, I saw Mr. B in the conference room. His capacity to express grief and distress at the loss of his father has been impressive, as has his initiative in finding a grief group to attend, which he has done consistently.

Several patients who had been seeing me for weekly psychotherapy chose not to continue, many without specifically informing me of their decision. I understood the situation was in flux, and it would not be clear to anyone what to expect for the future. To avoid pressuring anyone, I chose not to contact patients to inquire about their plans.

Ms. C, age 50, is a professional with 3 children whose marriage had been highly dissatisfying for years, and she was now ready to investigate it. She was very successful in her career, having taken on a leadership role in her firm and earning a high income, while her husband was erratic, unreliable, and self-absorbed. Though he was well-educated and competent in his field, he could not maintain employment in a corporate environment and worked as a consultant with relatively little success. Along with the hours she spent working, Ms. C took responsibility for the family finances, was the chief wage earner, managed the needs of their children, made sure meals were prepared, and took on many other responsibilities.

Continue to: Case examples: How it worked (cont.)...

We agreed to a weekly session that fit Ms. C’s schedule, and she seemed able to relax and talk about herself. I found Ms. C quite likeable and enjoyed meeting with her, though I worried about whether we would need a greater intensity to get at the reasons such a successful and intelligent woman would fear setting limits with her husband or even considering ending the relationship. The reasons were clear as we put together the story of her early life, but conviction only develops with full emotional awareness (transference provides this in psychoanalysis).

The pandemic started approximately 18 months into our work, and Ms. C disappeared. She called my administrative assistant to cancel further appointments but did not ask to speak with me directly. While I knew this might represent resistance, I also felt unwilling to pressure Ms. C if she chose not to continue. I remain hopeful that I will hear from her once again; if not, I will send a note by mail to say that I enjoyed working with her, am happy to see her again, and hope she found some benefit from our work.

Mr. D contacted me for psychotherapy following the death of his father, who I had seen as a patient many years earlier. I was aware of the likely impact of his father’s outsized personality and emotional dysregulation on Mr. D and agreed to meet with him. He had taken over the family business and had made it an even greater success, but had trouble feeling confident about setting limits with employees who he knew took advantage of his avoidance.

Mr. D and I met weekly for several months and then moved to every other week, a form of resistance I expected as we got closer to his feeling pain. At the same time, I recognize that many patients use this tactic to “dose” themselves with the intensity they can tolerate, and Mr. D was quite observant and able to pick up themes where we’d left off.

When the pandemic shut down office visits, Mr. D immediately agreed to video sessions, which he has continued at roughly the same frequency. While I miss sitting with him, we continue to make progress towards his goal of learning to see himself as able to compete with his father.

Psychoanalysis patients 

I found that patients in psychoanalysis had no trouble with the transition to telephone sessions, and the intensity of the work was not diluted. In some ways, audio-only communication is more intimate and might encourage patients to talk about topics they may not have otherwise brought up. I have not seen any evidence of less progress among these patients.

Dr. E, age 45, is a divorced physician who began psychoanalysis 3 times per week on the couch in 2018 for problems with frustration and confusion about his career, his identity as a father, and intense loneliness. He had worked up to 80 hours per week to earn as much money as he could, but also to avoid time at home with his then-wife and young children. The lack of time to recover led him to hate his work, left no time for social connections, and led to binges of heavy drinking. Our work had begun to allow him to develop a narrative about his early life that had never been considered, and to identify patterns of repetition of old defensive strategies that had never served him well.

At the onset of the pandemic, I told Dr. E that we would have to switch to telephone sessions, and he agreed immediately. In fact, he came to prefer telephone work since it spared him the 2 hours per day he had spent coming to my office. While I found it less satisfying than working in person, we have continued the same schedule and with the same intensity and trajectory established before the pandemic.

Continue to: Working with new patients...

Seeing new patients for diagnostic evaluation is always best done in person, because the information I gain from the patient’s appearance, clothing, demeanor, gait, postures, gesturing, and facial expressions (among other elements) gives me important impressions I miss with video or telephone. In many cases, patients gain a sense of who I am from sitting in my office, and using the conference room eliminates that benefit. I attempted to create a warm environment in the conference room by obtaining lamps that produce warmer indirect light and hanging artwork that reflects my tastes. There are clocks in places that allow me and my patient to keep track of time. In meeting new patients by video, I get some impressions about their surroundings that add to the information I get through our interview. I have done many diagnostic evaluations during the pandemic and gotten treatments (whether medication, psychotherapy, or both) underway without discernible problems in the outcomes. Patients who started with me in person have mostly wanted to continue with in-person meetings, but as many have told me, interspersed video sessions save them travel time.

What about vaccination?

Once COVID-19 vaccinations were widely available, I assumed patients would be as eager to get them as I had been. When I began asking patients about whether they had gotten their vaccines, I was surprised to hear that a few were not going to get vaccinated, clearly based on political views and misinformation about the danger of vaccines. (The topic of political beliefs and their impact on psychological treatment is beyond the scope of this commentary.) I tried to counter obvious misinformation, repeated my recommendation that the patient get vaccinated, and then turned to other topics. I later decided to tell all patients that vaccination was required to enter the office. Only 1 patient who had been coming to the office dropped out, and she eventually returned to meeting by video.

COVID-19’s toll on the therapist

While the first several months of the pandemic were so full of uncertainty about the future, once vaccinations were available, it seemed cause for hope of a return to normalcy. As time went on, however, it became clear that normal was still a long way off. With vaccine refusal and new variants upending my naïve view that we were near the end, I began to feel aware of the impact this had on me, and began to focus on self-care (Box). I had always seen myself as unusually lucky to have a full practice, a supportive partnership with my husband, grown children who didn’t need me to homeschool them, a strong social network of friends who could share the burden and cheer each other up at outdoor gatherings, and a wonderful group of siblings and in-laws (all in different cities) who stayed in touch via video calls and quarantined in advance of getting together in someone’s home.

Box

Staying busy and engaged with my practice, spouse, family, and friends kept sadness away most of the time. But I surprised myself a few months ago when I sat down to reflect and check in with myself. I felt enormous loss, resentment, and exhaustion at the privations of the pandemic: every trip to the grocery story felt dangerous. I hadn’t seen the inside of a concert hall, movie theater, restaurant, or museum in nearly 2 years. Travel for meetings and visits to family and friends and various adventures had been abruptly stopped. I lost both parents (not to COVID-19) during 2020; both were older adults living in senior communities that could not allow visitors. The usual grieving process would include attending services at my synagogue where I could say Kaddish for them, and video services were simply not tolerable.

Most of us have become experts at video meetings and likely have come to despise them. While our Institute has always held classes with some out-of-town students joining by video, with a very sophisticated system that provides excellent sound and visual fidelity, teaching entirely by video is another matter. I now teach students I have never met in person and might not recognize if I passed them in public. The art of creating discussion around a table is much more difficult on a computer screen. The first class I taught to residents during the pandemic was completely disorienting as I faced a wall of black screens with names and silence. Each student had turned off their camera and muted their microphone, so I was lecturing to a computer. That never happened again after I insisted on seeing everyone’s face and hearing their voices.

Thankfully, my usual experience of a long day seeing patients followed by chatting while cooking dinner with my husband and walking the dogs before settling down to read didn’t change. But the pleasure of sitting with patients was replaced by the daily grind of figuring out who will need a video link, who will be on the telephone, and who will come to the office, and it doesn’t feel the same. Again, in the big picture, I realize how fortunate I have been, but it’s been a big change in the world of the psychotherapist.

COVID-19 affected all aspects of psychiatric care. As a psychiatrist who is also a psychoanalyst, I faced some unique challenges to caring for my patients during the pandemic. In this article, I describe how COVID-19 impacted my practice, and how I adjusted to ensure that my patients received the best possible care.

The loss of ‘normal’

Our recognition of the loss was not immediate since no one knew what to expect. From March 11, 2020 through the end of the warm weather, when we could be outdoors, personal life was still gratifying. There was even a new spirit of togetherness in my neighborhood, with people seamlessly cooperating by crossing the street to avoid getting too close to one another, practicing proper social distancing in the grocery line, and smiling at everyone.

November 2020 through Spring 2021 was an unprecedented period of no socialization and spending time exclusively with my husband. By the end, I was finally aware of the exhaustion I felt trying to work with patients via phone and video sessions. Beyond that, we were (and still are) conducting administrative meetings and national organization meetings by video.

Spring 2021 until the arrival of cold weather felt more relaxed, as socializing outside again became possible. But from Winter 2021 to now has been a weary repeat of isolation, and a realization that my work life might never go back to “normal.” I would have to make peace with various sorts of losses of gratification in my work.

Life before COVID-19

I am a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in a group private practice near the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. As a former full-time faculty member there, I maintain some teaching and supervision of residents. I typically see patients from 8:30 AM until 6:30 PM, and for years have had an average of 5 patients in psychoanalysis on the couch for 3 to 4 sessions per week. I see some psychotherapy patients weekly or twice a week and have some hours for new diagnostic evaluations and medication management. In addition, as a faculty member of the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute, I take part in several committees, teach in the psychotherapy program and psychoanalytic training program, and supervise students and candidates. Most weeks, I see between 35 and 40 patients, with 4 to 6 weeks of vacation time per year.

Major changes with the onset of the pandemic

Once the threat from COVID-19 became clear in March 2020, I thought through my options. My office comprises 5 professional offices, a waiting room, and an administrative area. Our administrative assistant and 1 or 2 practitioners were in the office with me most days. We maintained appropriate distance from each another and wore masks in common areas. The practice group was exemplary in immediately setting up safe practices. I learned a few colleagues were seeing patients outside using lawn chairs in the back of our lot where there was some privacy, but many stopped coming to the building altogether.

I felt real sadness having to tell patients I could no longer see them in my office. However, I was relieved to find how quickly many patients made an immediate transition to telephone or video sessions. Since I was alone in my office and not distracted by barking dogs, ringing doorbells, or loud lawnmowers, I continued to come to the office, and never switched to working from home.

Since I was not vis-à-vis with patients on the couch, those sessions shifted to the telephone. I offered psychotherapy patients the option of video sessions via the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant Doximity app (doxy.me) or telephone, and found that approximately 75% preferred video. When I used the telephone, I used a professional-grade headset, which made it less onerous than being tied to a receiver, and I occasionally used the speaker option. I also installed a desk platform that allows me to raise and lower my computer from sitting to standing height.

I worried a great deal about patients I felt would do poorly with video or telephone sessions: older adults who found comfort in human contact that was sometimes curative, less well-integrated individuals who needed real contact in order to feel there was a treatment process, those with serious mental illnesses who needed reassurance at their reality-testing, and new patients who I couldn’t fully assess without in-person meetings.

In the beginning of the pandemic, as we were still learning about the virus, nothing seemed safe. We were washing our hands constantly, afraid to touch doorknobs, mail, or groceries. Thankfully, we learned that COVID-19 transmission occurs primarily through inhalation of droplets and particles containing the virus.¹ Masks, good ventilation, and adequate distance from others considerably cut infection rates. By January 2021, the availability of a vaccine made an enormous difference in vulnerability to severe illness.

When I stopped seeing patients in my office, I set up the conference room that had doors on either end so I could sit on one end of a table and have the patient at the other end, keeping about 8 feet between us. I also kept a fan blowing air away from me and parallel to the patient. After each session, I opened both doors to allow for full ventilation of the room. This provided a solution for the patients I knew I needed to meet with in person.

The following case examples illustrate how I provided care during this time. To protect patient anonymity, these vignettes are composites.

Psychotherapy patients 

Established patients in psychotherapy have seemed to work well with video or telephone sessions. The video option added a new element I never appreciated: seeing patients in their homes or cars allowed me to gain a new set of impressions about them. The use of technology is clearly another element I would not have identified before. Less technically adept older patients are likely to join a video session with only the top of their head visible, or with insufficient lighting. In some cases, I coached patients to rearrange their computer so I could see their faces, but only if it seemed that doing so would not cause them greater distress.

Ms. A, age 74, is a widow who retired from a high-level professional position 5 years ago. She was brought to the hospital due to ongoing anxiety, especially about her health. Ms. A maintained a wide range of relationships with friends, colleagues she mentored, and neighbors who provided a satisfying social network, and she continued to contribute to her field via scholarly writing projects. Before the pandemic, she found occasional sessions helpful in putting her health fears into perspective. When the pandemic led her to isolate at home, Ms. A became anxious and depressed to an unprecedented extent. Video sessions were unsatisfying, and she was terrified of taking tranquilizers or other medications. Once COVID-19 vaccinations became available and both she and I received both doses, we switched to meeting in the conference room every 2 to 3 weeks, with considerably better results.

Mr. B, age 41, is a single male who I diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 19 when he developed paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations. Mr. B was not interested in taking antipsychotic medications, and his situation did not improve even when he did try taking them. He volunteered at a local emergency department doing odd jobs—moving gurneys, cleaning rooms, hauling boxes of supplies—for many years, and had always been employed in jobs such as grocery stocking or janitorial work that did not involve extensive interactions with people. He repeatedly enrolled in programs that would provide a skill such as phlebotomy or medical billing, only to find that he was never hired for such work. We talked once a month for 30 minutes about his frustrations trying to find women to date and marry, and how he was repeatedly taken advantage of (one “date” from an escort service took him to an ATM and got him to withdraw most of the money in his account).

Coincident with COVID-19, Mr. B’s father died from widespread metastatic cancer. His father had been Mr. B’s guide, friend, payee for Social Security Disability Insurance funds, and source of advice. To provide humane and somewhat effective treatment, I saw Mr. B in the conference room. His capacity to express grief and distress at the loss of his father has been impressive, as has his initiative in finding a grief group to attend, which he has done consistently.

Several patients who had been seeing me for weekly psychotherapy chose not to continue, many without specifically informing me of their decision. I understood the situation was in flux, and it would not be clear to anyone what to expect for the future. To avoid pressuring anyone, I chose not to contact patients to inquire about their plans.

Ms. C, age 50, is a professional with 3 children whose marriage had been highly dissatisfying for years, and she was now ready to investigate it. She was very successful in her career, having taken on a leadership role in her firm and earning a high income, while her husband was erratic, unreliable, and self-absorbed. Though he was well-educated and competent in his field, he could not maintain employment in a corporate environment and worked as a consultant with relatively little success. Along with the hours she spent working, Ms. C took responsibility for the family finances, was the chief wage earner, managed the needs of their children, made sure meals were prepared, and took on many other responsibilities.

Continue to: Case examples: How it worked (cont.)...

We agreed to a weekly session that fit Ms. C’s schedule, and she seemed able to relax and talk about herself. I found Ms. C quite likeable and enjoyed meeting with her, though I worried about whether we would need a greater intensity to get at the reasons such a successful and intelligent woman would fear setting limits with her husband or even considering ending the relationship. The reasons were clear as we put together the story of her early life, but conviction only develops with full emotional awareness (transference provides this in psychoanalysis).

The pandemic started approximately 18 months into our work, and Ms. C disappeared. She called my administrative assistant to cancel further appointments but did not ask to speak with me directly. While I knew this might represent resistance, I also felt unwilling to pressure Ms. C if she chose not to continue. I remain hopeful that I will hear from her once again; if not, I will send a note by mail to say that I enjoyed working with her, am happy to see her again, and hope she found some benefit from our work.

Mr. D contacted me for psychotherapy following the death of his father, who I had seen as a patient many years earlier. I was aware of the likely impact of his father’s outsized personality and emotional dysregulation on Mr. D and agreed to meet with him. He had taken over the family business and had made it an even greater success, but had trouble feeling confident about setting limits with employees who he knew took advantage of his avoidance.

Mr. D and I met weekly for several months and then moved to every other week, a form of resistance I expected as we got closer to his feeling pain. At the same time, I recognize that many patients use this tactic to “dose” themselves with the intensity they can tolerate, and Mr. D was quite observant and able to pick up themes where we’d left off.

When the pandemic shut down office visits, Mr. D immediately agreed to video sessions, which he has continued at roughly the same frequency. While I miss sitting with him, we continue to make progress towards his goal of learning to see himself as able to compete with his father.

Psychoanalysis patients 

I found that patients in psychoanalysis had no trouble with the transition to telephone sessions, and the intensity of the work was not diluted. In some ways, audio-only communication is more intimate and might encourage patients to talk about topics they may not have otherwise brought up. I have not seen any evidence of less progress among these patients.

Dr. E, age 45, is a divorced physician who began psychoanalysis 3 times per week on the couch in 2018 for problems with frustration and confusion about his career, his identity as a father, and intense loneliness. He had worked up to 80 hours per week to earn as much money as he could, but also to avoid time at home with his then-wife and young children. The lack of time to recover led him to hate his work, left no time for social connections, and led to binges of heavy drinking. Our work had begun to allow him to develop a narrative about his early life that had never been considered, and to identify patterns of repetition of old defensive strategies that had never served him well.

At the onset of the pandemic, I told Dr. E that we would have to switch to telephone sessions, and he agreed immediately. In fact, he came to prefer telephone work since it spared him the 2 hours per day he had spent coming to my office. While I found it less satisfying than working in person, we have continued the same schedule and with the same intensity and trajectory established before the pandemic.

Continue to: Working with new patients...

Seeing new patients for diagnostic evaluation is always best done in person, because the information I gain from the patient’s appearance, clothing, demeanor, gait, postures, gesturing, and facial expressions (among other elements) gives me important impressions I miss with video or telephone. In many cases, patients gain a sense of who I am from sitting in my office, and using the conference room eliminates that benefit. I attempted to create a warm environment in the conference room by obtaining lamps that produce warmer indirect light and hanging artwork that reflects my tastes. There are clocks in places that allow me and my patient to keep track of time. In meeting new patients by video, I get some impressions about their surroundings that add to the information I get through our interview. I have done many diagnostic evaluations during the pandemic and gotten treatments (whether medication, psychotherapy, or both) underway without discernible problems in the outcomes. Patients who started with me in person have mostly wanted to continue with in-person meetings, but as many have told me, interspersed video sessions save them travel time.

What about vaccination?

Once COVID-19 vaccinations were widely available, I assumed patients would be as eager to get them as I had been. When I began asking patients about whether they had gotten their vaccines, I was surprised to hear that a few were not going to get vaccinated, clearly based on political views and misinformation about the danger of vaccines. (The topic of political beliefs and their impact on psychological treatment is beyond the scope of this commentary.) I tried to counter obvious misinformation, repeated my recommendation that the patient get vaccinated, and then turned to other topics. I later decided to tell all patients that vaccination was required to enter the office. Only 1 patient who had been coming to the office dropped out, and she eventually returned to meeting by video.

COVID-19’s toll on the therapist

While the first several months of the pandemic were so full of uncertainty about the future, once vaccinations were available, it seemed cause for hope of a return to normalcy. As time went on, however, it became clear that normal was still a long way off. With vaccine refusal and new variants upending my naïve view that we were near the end, I began to feel aware of the impact this had on me, and began to focus on self-care (Box). I had always seen myself as unusually lucky to have a full practice, a supportive partnership with my husband, grown children who didn’t need me to homeschool them, a strong social network of friends who could share the burden and cheer each other up at outdoor gatherings, and a wonderful group of siblings and in-laws (all in different cities) who stayed in touch via video calls and quarantined in advance of getting together in someone’s home.

Box

Staying busy and engaged with my practice, spouse, family, and friends kept sadness away most of the time. But I surprised myself a few months ago when I sat down to reflect and check in with myself. I felt enormous loss, resentment, and exhaustion at the privations of the pandemic: every trip to the grocery story felt dangerous. I hadn’t seen the inside of a concert hall, movie theater, restaurant, or museum in nearly 2 years. Travel for meetings and visits to family and friends and various adventures had been abruptly stopped. I lost both parents (not to COVID-19) during 2020; both were older adults living in senior communities that could not allow visitors. The usual grieving process would include attending services at my synagogue where I could say Kaddish for them, and video services were simply not tolerable.

Most of us have become experts at video meetings and likely have come to despise them. While our Institute has always held classes with some out-of-town students joining by video, with a very sophisticated system that provides excellent sound and visual fidelity, teaching entirely by video is another matter. I now teach students I have never met in person and might not recognize if I passed them in public. The art of creating discussion around a table is much more difficult on a computer screen. The first class I taught to residents during the pandemic was completely disorienting as I faced a wall of black screens with names and silence. Each student had turned off their camera and muted their microphone, so I was lecturing to a computer. That never happened again after I insisted on seeing everyone’s face and hearing their voices.

Thankfully, my usual experience of a long day seeing patients followed by chatting while cooking dinner with my husband and walking the dogs before settling down to read didn’t change. But the pleasure of sitting with patients was replaced by the daily grind of figuring out who will need a video link, who will be on the telephone, and who will come to the office, and it doesn’t feel the same. Again, in the big picture, I realize how fortunate I have been, but it’s been a big change in the world of the psychotherapist.

With the COVID-19 pandemic turning the world on its head, we have seen more first-episode psychotic breaks and quick deterioration in previously stable patients. Early in the pandemic, care was particularly complicated for psychiatric patients who had been infected with the virus. Many of these patients required immediate psychiatric hospitalization. At that time, many community hospital psychiatric inpatient units did not have the capacity, staffing, or infrastructure to safely admit such patients, so they needed to be managed on a medical unit. Here, I discuss the case of a COVID-19–positive woman with psychiatric illness who we managed while she was in quarantine on a medical unit.

Case report

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. B, a 35-year-old teacher with a history of depression, was evaluated in the emergency department for bizarre behavior and paranoid delusions regarding her family. Initial laboratory and imaging testing was negative for any potential medical causes of her psychiatric symptoms. Psychiatric hospitalization was recommended, but before Ms. B could be transferred to the psychiatric unit, she tested positive for COVID-19. At that time, our community hospital did not have a designated wing on our psychiatric unit for patients infected with COVID-19. Thus, Ms. B was admitted to the medical floor, where she was quarantined in her room. She would need to remain asymptomatic and test negative for COVID-19 before she could be transferred to the psychiatric unit.

Upon arriving at the medical unit, Ms. B was hostile and uncooperative. She frequently attempted to leave her room and required restraints throughout the day. Our consultation-liaison (CL) team was consulted to assist in managing her. During the initial interview, we noticed that she had covered all 4 walls of her room with papers filled with handwritten notes. Ms. B had cut her gown to expose her stomach and legs. She had pressured speech, tangential thinking, and was religiously preoccupied. She denied any visual and auditory hallucinations, but her persecutory delusions involving her family persisted. We believed that her signs and symptoms were consistent with a manic episode from underlying, and likely undiagnosed, bipolar I disorder that was precipitated by her COVID-19 infection.

We first addressed Ms. B’s and the staff’s safety by transferring her to a larger room with a vestibule at the end of the hallway so she had more room to walk and minimal exposure to the stimuli of the medical unit. We initiated one-on-one observation to redirect her and prevent elopement. We incentivized her cooperation with staff by providing her with paper, pencils, reading material, and phone privileges. We started oral risperidone 2 mg twice daily and lorazepam 2 mg 3 times daily for short-term behavioral control and acute treatment of her symptoms, with the goal of deferring additional treatment decisions to the inpatient psychiatry team after she was transferred to the psychiatric unit. Ms. B’s agitation and impulsivity improved. She began participating with the medical team and was eventually transferred out of our medical unit to a psychiatric unit at a different facility.

COVID-19 and psychiatric illness: Clinical concerns

While infection from COVID-19 and widespread social distancing of the general population have been linked to depression and anxiety, manic and psychotic symptoms secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic have not been well described. The association between influenza infection and psychosis has been reported since the Spanish Flu pandemic,¹ but there is limited data on the association between COVID-19 and psychosis. A review of 14 studies found that 0.9% to 4% of people exposed to a virus during an epidemic or pandemic develop psychosis or psychotic symptoms.¹ Psychosis was associated with viral exposure, treatments used to manage the infection (steroid therapy), and psychosocial stress. This study also found that treatment with low doses of antipsychotic medication—notably aripiprazole—seemed to have been effective.¹

Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind a thorough differential diagnosis and rule out any potential organic etiologies in a COVID-19–positive patient who presents with psychiatric symptoms.² For Ms. B, we began by ruling out drug-induced psychosis and electrolyte imbalance, and obtained brain imaging to rule out malignancy. We considered an interictal behavior syndrome of temporal lobe epilepsy, a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by alterations in sexual behavior, religiosity, and extensive and compulsive writing and drawing.³ Neurology was consulted to evaluate the patient and possibly use EEG to detect interictal spikes, a tall task given the patient’s restlessness and paranoia. Ultimately, we determined the patient was most likely exhibiting symptoms of previously undetected bipolar disorder.

Managing patients with psychiatric illness on a medical floor during a pandemic such as COVID-19 requires the psychiatrist to truly serve as a consultant and liaison between the patient and the treatment team.⁴ Clinical management should address both infection control and psychiatric symptoms.⁵ We visited with Ms. B frequently, provided psychoeducation, engaged her in treatment, and updated her on the treatment plan.

As the medical world continues to adjust to treating patients during the pandemic, CL psychiatrists may be tasked with managing patients with acute psychiatric illness on the medical unit while they await transfer to a psychiatric unit. A creative, multifaceted, and team-based approach is key to ensure effective care and safety for all involved.

With the COVID-19 pandemic turning the world on its head, we have seen more first-episode psychotic breaks and quick deterioration in previously stable patients. Early in the pandemic, care was particularly complicated for psychiatric patients who had been infected with the virus. Many of these patients required immediate psychiatric hospitalization. At that time, many community hospital psychiatric inpatient units did not have the capacity, staffing, or infrastructure to safely admit such patients, so they needed to be managed on a medical unit. Here, I discuss the case of a COVID-19–positive woman with psychiatric illness who we managed while she was in quarantine on a medical unit.

Case report

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. B, a 35-year-old teacher with a history of depression, was evaluated in the emergency department for bizarre behavior and paranoid delusions regarding her family. Initial laboratory and imaging testing was negative for any potential medical causes of her psychiatric symptoms. Psychiatric hospitalization was recommended, but before Ms. B could be transferred to the psychiatric unit, she tested positive for COVID-19. At that time, our community hospital did not have a designated wing on our psychiatric unit for patients infected with COVID-19. Thus, Ms. B was admitted to the medical floor, where she was quarantined in her room. She would need to remain asymptomatic and test negative for COVID-19 before she could be transferred to the psychiatric unit.

Upon arriving at the medical unit, Ms. B was hostile and uncooperative. She frequently attempted to leave her room and required restraints throughout the day. Our consultation-liaison (CL) team was consulted to assist in managing her. During the initial interview, we noticed that she had covered all 4 walls of her room with papers filled with handwritten notes. Ms. B had cut her gown to expose her stomach and legs. She had pressured speech, tangential thinking, and was religiously preoccupied. She denied any visual and auditory hallucinations, but her persecutory delusions involving her family persisted. We believed that her signs and symptoms were consistent with a manic episode from underlying, and likely undiagnosed, bipolar I disorder that was precipitated by her COVID-19 infection.

We first addressed Ms. B’s and the staff’s safety by transferring her to a larger room with a vestibule at the end of the hallway so she had more room to walk and minimal exposure to the stimuli of the medical unit. We initiated one-on-one observation to redirect her and prevent elopement. We incentivized her cooperation with staff by providing her with paper, pencils, reading material, and phone privileges. We started oral risperidone 2 mg twice daily and lorazepam 2 mg 3 times daily for short-term behavioral control and acute treatment of her symptoms, with the goal of deferring additional treatment decisions to the inpatient psychiatry team after she was transferred to the psychiatric unit. Ms. B’s agitation and impulsivity improved. She began participating with the medical team and was eventually transferred out of our medical unit to a psychiatric unit at a different facility.

COVID-19 and psychiatric illness: Clinical concerns

While infection from COVID-19 and widespread social distancing of the general population have been linked to depression and anxiety, manic and psychotic symptoms secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic have not been well described. The association between influenza infection and psychosis has been reported since the Spanish Flu pandemic,¹ but there is limited data on the association between COVID-19 and psychosis. A review of 14 studies found that 0.9% to 4% of people exposed to a virus during an epidemic or pandemic develop psychosis or psychotic symptoms.¹ Psychosis was associated with viral exposure, treatments used to manage the infection (steroid therapy), and psychosocial stress. This study also found that treatment with low doses of antipsychotic medication—notably aripiprazole—seemed to have been effective.¹

Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind a thorough differential diagnosis and rule out any potential organic etiologies in a COVID-19–positive patient who presents with psychiatric symptoms.² For Ms. B, we began by ruling out drug-induced psychosis and electrolyte imbalance, and obtained brain imaging to rule out malignancy. We considered an interictal behavior syndrome of temporal lobe epilepsy, a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by alterations in sexual behavior, religiosity, and extensive and compulsive writing and drawing.³ Neurology was consulted to evaluate the patient and possibly use EEG to detect interictal spikes, a tall task given the patient’s restlessness and paranoia. Ultimately, we determined the patient was most likely exhibiting symptoms of previously undetected bipolar disorder.

Managing patients with psychiatric illness on a medical floor during a pandemic such as COVID-19 requires the psychiatrist to truly serve as a consultant and liaison between the patient and the treatment team.⁴ Clinical management should address both infection control and psychiatric symptoms.⁵ We visited with Ms. B frequently, provided psychoeducation, engaged her in treatment, and updated her on the treatment plan.

As the medical world continues to adjust to treating patients during the pandemic, CL psychiatrists may be tasked with managing patients with acute psychiatric illness on the medical unit while they await transfer to a psychiatric unit. A creative, multifaceted, and team-based approach is key to ensure effective care and safety for all involved.

With the COVID-19 pandemic turning the world on its head, we have seen more first-episode psychotic breaks and quick deterioration in previously stable patients. Early in the pandemic, care was particularly complicated for psychiatric patients who had been infected with the virus. Many of these patients required immediate psychiatric hospitalization. At that time, many community hospital psychiatric inpatient units did not have the capacity, staffing, or infrastructure to safely admit such patients, so they needed to be managed on a medical unit. Here, I discuss the case of a COVID-19–positive woman with psychiatric illness who we managed while she was in quarantine on a medical unit.

Case report

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. B, a 35-year-old teacher with a history of depression, was evaluated in the emergency department for bizarre behavior and paranoid delusions regarding her family. Initial laboratory and imaging testing was negative for any potential medical causes of her psychiatric symptoms. Psychiatric hospitalization was recommended, but before Ms. B could be transferred to the psychiatric unit, she tested positive for COVID-19. At that time, our community hospital did not have a designated wing on our psychiatric unit for patients infected with COVID-19. Thus, Ms. B was admitted to the medical floor, where she was quarantined in her room. She would need to remain asymptomatic and test negative for COVID-19 before she could be transferred to the psychiatric unit.

Upon arriving at the medical unit, Ms. B was hostile and uncooperative. She frequently attempted to leave her room and required restraints throughout the day. Our consultation-liaison (CL) team was consulted to assist in managing her. During the initial interview, we noticed that she had covered all 4 walls of her room with papers filled with handwritten notes. Ms. B had cut her gown to expose her stomach and legs. She had pressured speech, tangential thinking, and was religiously preoccupied. She denied any visual and auditory hallucinations, but her persecutory delusions involving her family persisted. We believed that her signs and symptoms were consistent with a manic episode from underlying, and likely undiagnosed, bipolar I disorder that was precipitated by her COVID-19 infection.

We first addressed Ms. B’s and the staff’s safety by transferring her to a larger room with a vestibule at the end of the hallway so she had more room to walk and minimal exposure to the stimuli of the medical unit. We initiated one-on-one observation to redirect her and prevent elopement. We incentivized her cooperation with staff by providing her with paper, pencils, reading material, and phone privileges. We started oral risperidone 2 mg twice daily and lorazepam 2 mg 3 times daily for short-term behavioral control and acute treatment of her symptoms, with the goal of deferring additional treatment decisions to the inpatient psychiatry team after she was transferred to the psychiatric unit. Ms. B’s agitation and impulsivity improved. She began participating with the medical team and was eventually transferred out of our medical unit to a psychiatric unit at a different facility.

COVID-19 and psychiatric illness: Clinical concerns

While infection from COVID-19 and widespread social distancing of the general population have been linked to depression and anxiety, manic and psychotic symptoms secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic have not been well described. The association between influenza infection and psychosis has been reported since the Spanish Flu pandemic,¹ but there is limited data on the association between COVID-19 and psychosis. A review of 14 studies found that 0.9% to 4% of people exposed to a virus during an epidemic or pandemic develop psychosis or psychotic symptoms.¹ Psychosis was associated with viral exposure, treatments used to manage the infection (steroid therapy), and psychosocial stress. This study also found that treatment with low doses of antipsychotic medication—notably aripiprazole—seemed to have been effective.¹

Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind a thorough differential diagnosis and rule out any potential organic etiologies in a COVID-19–positive patient who presents with psychiatric symptoms.² For Ms. B, we began by ruling out drug-induced psychosis and electrolyte imbalance, and obtained brain imaging to rule out malignancy. We considered an interictal behavior syndrome of temporal lobe epilepsy, a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by alterations in sexual behavior, religiosity, and extensive and compulsive writing and drawing.³ Neurology was consulted to evaluate the patient and possibly use EEG to detect interictal spikes, a tall task given the patient’s restlessness and paranoia. Ultimately, we determined the patient was most likely exhibiting symptoms of previously undetected bipolar disorder.

Managing patients with psychiatric illness on a medical floor during a pandemic such as COVID-19 requires the psychiatrist to truly serve as a consultant and liaison between the patient and the treatment team.⁴ Clinical management should address both infection control and psychiatric symptoms.⁵ We visited with Ms. B frequently, provided psychoeducation, engaged her in treatment, and updated her on the treatment plan.

As the medical world continues to adjust to treating patients during the pandemic, CL psychiatrists may be tasked with managing patients with acute psychiatric illness on the medical unit while they await transfer to a psychiatric unit. A creative, multifaceted, and team-based approach is key to ensure effective care and safety for all involved.

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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