COVID-19 Updates

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may be associated with traumatic events in childhood that undermine trust, including domestic violence, substance abuse in the home, or neglect, data published Feb. 1 suggest.

The findings by Mark A. Bellis, DSc, College of Human Sciences, Bangor (Wales) University, and colleagues were published online in BMJ Open.

The results are especially significant, the authors say, because of the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) globally, with proportions of people having multiple traumas in some countries at 10% or more of the population.

The authors wrote that hesitancy or refusal to get the vaccine increased with the number of traumas reported.

For example, hesitancy was three times higher among people who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma than among those who did not report any traumatic events.

Dr. Bellis told this news organization that though their work suggests that higher levels of ACEs are linked with higher vaccine hesitancy, it is by no means the only reason people choose not to get vaccinated.

However, he said, the association they found may have key messages for clinicians.

“For clinicians, simply being trauma informed can help,” Dr. Bellis said. “Understanding how such childhood adversity can affect people may help them when discussing vaccines, and in understanding resistance to what is a complex medical issue and one that requires considerable trust. What can appear routine to a clinician may be a difficult leap of faith especially for those who have poorer experiences of trusting even within family settings.”
 

More trauma, less trust

The authors used responses to a nationally representative telephone survey of adults in Wales taken between December 2020 and March 2021, when COVID-19 restrictions were in force. Out of 6,763 people contacted, 2,285 met all criteria and answered all the questions and were included in the final analysis.

The survey asked about nine types of ACEs before the age of 18, including: parental separation; physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; exposure to domestic violence; and living with a household member who has mental illness, misuses alcohol and/or drugs, or who was incarcerated.

It also included personal details and long-term health information.

About half of the respondents said they hadn’t experienced any childhood trauma. Of those who did, one in five said they had experienced one type, 17% reported two to three types, and 10% reported four or more.

According to the authors, prevalence of ACEs reported was consistent with other comparable population surveys, including those conducted face to face.

They also investigated measures of trust and preference for different health regulations.

People with more ACEs were more likely to have low trust in National Health Service COVID-19 information.

“Other sociodemographics and a history of either chronic disease or COVID-19 infection were not significantly associated with low trust,” the authors pointed out.

People reporting higher ACEs also were more likely to report that they felt they were unfairly restricted by the government. People with four or more ACEs were twice as likely than were those with no ACEs to say they felt unfairly restricted and wanted rules such as mandatory masking to stop.

People with four or more types of trauma were almost twice as likely to ignore the restrictions as were those who hadn’t experienced any – 38% versus 21% – to ignore the restrictions, even after the researchers accounted for associations with sociodemographic factors and previous COVID-19 infection or a history of long-term conditions. 

“Clinicians can be a powerful voice to counter more alarmist or even conspiratorial messages that might otherwise resonate with those who find trust difficult,” Dr. Bellis said.

He said that the effect of childhood adversity needs to be considered at all levels in health systems. Overarching public health strategists should include ways to earn trust to counter resistance in some of the most vulnerable communities where ACEs can be higher.

It will also be important in the short-term to “provide reassurance, build community champions, and understand the low base from which trust needs to be built,” he said.
 

Loss of control

“Past traumatic experiences can predispose someone to avoid things that remind them of that trauma. This avoidance protects them from re-experiencing the negative symptoms and behaviors that come with it. Whether this results into hesitancy of something that would benefit their health is not well known,” Consuelo Cagande, MD, senior associate program director and fellowship adviser in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization.

She pointed out a limitation the authors mention that is common when using ACEs as a measure linking to future negative behaviors – that people self-report them and may misremember or misreport them.

Another limitation is the potential for self-selection bias, as participation level was 36.4%, though the authors noted that is not unusual for unsolicited telephone surveys.

Dr. Cagande said that fearing loss of control may be another factor at play in having to follow restrictions, such as quarantining and masking, social distancing, or mandated vaccinations.

She said it’s important to understand a person’s reason for hesitancy to vaccines and work with the person with the help of the community, to help them trust and feel safe.
 

Young adults of particular concern

The 18- to 29-year-old age group is of particular concern, Dr. Bellis said.

The researchers estimated the likely rates of vaccine hesitancy according to childhood trauma and age, and the numbers ranged from around 3.5% among those aged 70 and older with no experience of childhood adversity to 38% among 18- to 29-year-olds who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma.

“Childhood adversity can be an especially raw issue in this group,” he explained. “Some have already been obliged to sacrifice substantial proportions of their teenage lives and some will have suffered greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences as a result of being isolated during the pandemic, sometimes in difficult home environments. Our results suggest that this age group and especially those with high levels of ACEs are some of the most likely to be vaccine hesitant.”

This work was supported by Public Health Wales. The study authors and Dr. Cagande reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may be associated with traumatic events in childhood that undermine trust, including domestic violence, substance abuse in the home, or neglect, data published Feb. 1 suggest.

The findings by Mark A. Bellis, DSc, College of Human Sciences, Bangor (Wales) University, and colleagues were published online in BMJ Open.

The results are especially significant, the authors say, because of the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) globally, with proportions of people having multiple traumas in some countries at 10% or more of the population.

The authors wrote that hesitancy or refusal to get the vaccine increased with the number of traumas reported.

For example, hesitancy was three times higher among people who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma than among those who did not report any traumatic events.

Dr. Bellis told this news organization that though their work suggests that higher levels of ACEs are linked with higher vaccine hesitancy, it is by no means the only reason people choose not to get vaccinated.

However, he said, the association they found may have key messages for clinicians.

“For clinicians, simply being trauma informed can help,” Dr. Bellis said. “Understanding how such childhood adversity can affect people may help them when discussing vaccines, and in understanding resistance to what is a complex medical issue and one that requires considerable trust. What can appear routine to a clinician may be a difficult leap of faith especially for those who have poorer experiences of trusting even within family settings.”
 

More trauma, less trust

The authors used responses to a nationally representative telephone survey of adults in Wales taken between December 2020 and March 2021, when COVID-19 restrictions were in force. Out of 6,763 people contacted, 2,285 met all criteria and answered all the questions and were included in the final analysis.

The survey asked about nine types of ACEs before the age of 18, including: parental separation; physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; exposure to domestic violence; and living with a household member who has mental illness, misuses alcohol and/or drugs, or who was incarcerated.

It also included personal details and long-term health information.

About half of the respondents said they hadn’t experienced any childhood trauma. Of those who did, one in five said they had experienced one type, 17% reported two to three types, and 10% reported four or more.

According to the authors, prevalence of ACEs reported was consistent with other comparable population surveys, including those conducted face to face.

They also investigated measures of trust and preference for different health regulations.

People with more ACEs were more likely to have low trust in National Health Service COVID-19 information.

“Other sociodemographics and a history of either chronic disease or COVID-19 infection were not significantly associated with low trust,” the authors pointed out.

People reporting higher ACEs also were more likely to report that they felt they were unfairly restricted by the government. People with four or more ACEs were twice as likely than were those with no ACEs to say they felt unfairly restricted and wanted rules such as mandatory masking to stop.

People with four or more types of trauma were almost twice as likely to ignore the restrictions as were those who hadn’t experienced any – 38% versus 21% – to ignore the restrictions, even after the researchers accounted for associations with sociodemographic factors and previous COVID-19 infection or a history of long-term conditions. 

“Clinicians can be a powerful voice to counter more alarmist or even conspiratorial messages that might otherwise resonate with those who find trust difficult,” Dr. Bellis said.

He said that the effect of childhood adversity needs to be considered at all levels in health systems. Overarching public health strategists should include ways to earn trust to counter resistance in some of the most vulnerable communities where ACEs can be higher.

It will also be important in the short-term to “provide reassurance, build community champions, and understand the low base from which trust needs to be built,” he said.
 

Loss of control

“Past traumatic experiences can predispose someone to avoid things that remind them of that trauma. This avoidance protects them from re-experiencing the negative symptoms and behaviors that come with it. Whether this results into hesitancy of something that would benefit their health is not well known,” Consuelo Cagande, MD, senior associate program director and fellowship adviser in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization.

She pointed out a limitation the authors mention that is common when using ACEs as a measure linking to future negative behaviors – that people self-report them and may misremember or misreport them.

Another limitation is the potential for self-selection bias, as participation level was 36.4%, though the authors noted that is not unusual for unsolicited telephone surveys.

Dr. Cagande said that fearing loss of control may be another factor at play in having to follow restrictions, such as quarantining and masking, social distancing, or mandated vaccinations.

She said it’s important to understand a person’s reason for hesitancy to vaccines and work with the person with the help of the community, to help them trust and feel safe.
 

Young adults of particular concern

The 18- to 29-year-old age group is of particular concern, Dr. Bellis said.

The researchers estimated the likely rates of vaccine hesitancy according to childhood trauma and age, and the numbers ranged from around 3.5% among those aged 70 and older with no experience of childhood adversity to 38% among 18- to 29-year-olds who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma.

“Childhood adversity can be an especially raw issue in this group,” he explained. “Some have already been obliged to sacrifice substantial proportions of their teenage lives and some will have suffered greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences as a result of being isolated during the pandemic, sometimes in difficult home environments. Our results suggest that this age group and especially those with high levels of ACEs are some of the most likely to be vaccine hesitant.”

This work was supported by Public Health Wales. The study authors and Dr. Cagande reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may be associated with traumatic events in childhood that undermine trust, including domestic violence, substance abuse in the home, or neglect, data published Feb. 1 suggest.

The findings by Mark A. Bellis, DSc, College of Human Sciences, Bangor (Wales) University, and colleagues were published online in BMJ Open.

The results are especially significant, the authors say, because of the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) globally, with proportions of people having multiple traumas in some countries at 10% or more of the population.

The authors wrote that hesitancy or refusal to get the vaccine increased with the number of traumas reported.

For example, hesitancy was three times higher among people who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma than among those who did not report any traumatic events.

Dr. Bellis told this news organization that though their work suggests that higher levels of ACEs are linked with higher vaccine hesitancy, it is by no means the only reason people choose not to get vaccinated.

However, he said, the association they found may have key messages for clinicians.

“For clinicians, simply being trauma informed can help,” Dr. Bellis said. “Understanding how such childhood adversity can affect people may help them when discussing vaccines, and in understanding resistance to what is a complex medical issue and one that requires considerable trust. What can appear routine to a clinician may be a difficult leap of faith especially for those who have poorer experiences of trusting even within family settings.”
 

More trauma, less trust

The authors used responses to a nationally representative telephone survey of adults in Wales taken between December 2020 and March 2021, when COVID-19 restrictions were in force. Out of 6,763 people contacted, 2,285 met all criteria and answered all the questions and were included in the final analysis.

The survey asked about nine types of ACEs before the age of 18, including: parental separation; physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; exposure to domestic violence; and living with a household member who has mental illness, misuses alcohol and/or drugs, or who was incarcerated.

It also included personal details and long-term health information.

About half of the respondents said they hadn’t experienced any childhood trauma. Of those who did, one in five said they had experienced one type, 17% reported two to three types, and 10% reported four or more.

According to the authors, prevalence of ACEs reported was consistent with other comparable population surveys, including those conducted face to face.

They also investigated measures of trust and preference for different health regulations.

People with more ACEs were more likely to have low trust in National Health Service COVID-19 information.

“Other sociodemographics and a history of either chronic disease or COVID-19 infection were not significantly associated with low trust,” the authors pointed out.

People reporting higher ACEs also were more likely to report that they felt they were unfairly restricted by the government. People with four or more ACEs were twice as likely than were those with no ACEs to say they felt unfairly restricted and wanted rules such as mandatory masking to stop.

People with four or more types of trauma were almost twice as likely to ignore the restrictions as were those who hadn’t experienced any – 38% versus 21% – to ignore the restrictions, even after the researchers accounted for associations with sociodemographic factors and previous COVID-19 infection or a history of long-term conditions. 

“Clinicians can be a powerful voice to counter more alarmist or even conspiratorial messages that might otherwise resonate with those who find trust difficult,” Dr. Bellis said.

He said that the effect of childhood adversity needs to be considered at all levels in health systems. Overarching public health strategists should include ways to earn trust to counter resistance in some of the most vulnerable communities where ACEs can be higher.

It will also be important in the short-term to “provide reassurance, build community champions, and understand the low base from which trust needs to be built,” he said.
 

Loss of control

“Past traumatic experiences can predispose someone to avoid things that remind them of that trauma. This avoidance protects them from re-experiencing the negative symptoms and behaviors that come with it. Whether this results into hesitancy of something that would benefit their health is not well known,” Consuelo Cagande, MD, senior associate program director and fellowship adviser in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization.

She pointed out a limitation the authors mention that is common when using ACEs as a measure linking to future negative behaviors – that people self-report them and may misremember or misreport them.

Another limitation is the potential for self-selection bias, as participation level was 36.4%, though the authors noted that is not unusual for unsolicited telephone surveys.

Dr. Cagande said that fearing loss of control may be another factor at play in having to follow restrictions, such as quarantining and masking, social distancing, or mandated vaccinations.

She said it’s important to understand a person’s reason for hesitancy to vaccines and work with the person with the help of the community, to help them trust and feel safe.
 

Young adults of particular concern

The 18- to 29-year-old age group is of particular concern, Dr. Bellis said.

The researchers estimated the likely rates of vaccine hesitancy according to childhood trauma and age, and the numbers ranged from around 3.5% among those aged 70 and older with no experience of childhood adversity to 38% among 18- to 29-year-olds who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma.

“Childhood adversity can be an especially raw issue in this group,” he explained. “Some have already been obliged to sacrifice substantial proportions of their teenage lives and some will have suffered greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences as a result of being isolated during the pandemic, sometimes in difficult home environments. Our results suggest that this age group and especially those with high levels of ACEs are some of the most likely to be vaccine hesitant.”

This work was supported by Public Health Wales. The study authors and Dr. Cagande reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy (Drs. Abram, Tosello, Emanuele Bernardi, Allione, Cavalot, Dutto, Corsini, Martini, Sciolla, Sara Bernardi, and Lauria). From the School of Emergency Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy (Drs. Paglietta and Giamello).

Objective: This retrospective and prospective cohort study was designed to describe the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) admitted to subintensive care units (SICU) and to identify the variables associated with outcomes. SICUs have been extremely stressed during the pandemic, but most data regarding critically ill COVID-19 patients come from intensive care units (ICUs). Studies about COVID-19 patients in SICUs are lacking.

Setting and participants: The study included 88 COVID-19 patients admitted to our SICU in Cuneo, Italy, between March and May 2020.

Measurements: Clinical and ventilatory data were collected, and patients were divided by outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis examined the variables associated with negative outcomes (transfer to the ICU, palliation, or death in a SICU).

Results: A total of 60 patients (68%) had a positive outcome, and 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome; 69 patients (78%) underwent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Pronation (n = 37 [42%]) had been more frequently adopted in patients who had a positive outcome vs a negative outcome (n = 30 [50%] vs n = 7 [25%]; P = .048), and the median (interquartile range) Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio after 6 hours of prone positioning was lower in patients who had a negative outcome vs a positive outcome (144 [140-168] vs 249 [195-268], P = .006). Independent predictors of a negative outcome were diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P = .015), higher D-dimer (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), higher lactate dehydrogenase level (OR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and lower lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Conclusion: SICUs have a fundamental role in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, who require long-term CPAP and pronation cycles. Diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH levels are associated with negative outcomes.

Keywords: emergency medicine, noninvasive ventilation, prone position, continuous positive airway pressure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to large increases in hospital admissions. Subintensive care units (SICUs) are among the wards most under pressure worldwide,¹ dealing with the increased number of critically ill patients who need noninvasive ventilation, as well as serving as the best alternative to overfilled intensive care units (ICUs). In Italy, SICUs are playing a fundamental role in the management of COVID-19 patients, providing early treatment of respiratory failure by continuous noninvasive ventilation in order to reduce the need for intubation.^2-5 Nevertheless, the great majority of available data about critically ill COVID-19 patients comes from ICUs. Full studies about outcomes of patients in SICUs are lacking and need to be conducted.

We sought to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to our SICU for COVID-19 to describe the treatments they needed and their impact on prognosis, and to identify the variables associated with patient outcomes.

Methods

Study Design

This cohort study used data from patients who were admitted in the very first weeks of the pandemic. Data were collected retrospectively as well as prospectively, since the ethical committee approved our project. The quality and quantity of data in the 2 groups were comparable.

Data were collected from electronic and written medical records gathered during the patient’s entire stay in our SICU. Data were entered in a database with limited and controlled access. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committees (ID: MEDURG10).

Study Population

We studied 88 consecutive patients admitted to the SICU of the Santa Croce e Carle Teaching Hospital, Cuneo, Italy, for COVID-19, from March 8 to May 1, 2020. The diagnosis was based on acute respiratory failure associated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on nasopharyngeal swab or tracheal aspirate and/or typical COVID-19 features on a pulmonary computed tomography (CT) scan.⁶ Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years and patient denial of permission to use their data for research purposes (the great majority of patients could actively give consent; for patients who were too sick to do so, family members were asked whether they were aware of any reason why the patient would deny consent).

The past medical history and recent symptoms description were obtained by manually reviewing medical records. Epidemiological exposure was defined as contact with SARS-CoV-2–positive people or staying in an epidemic outbreak area. Initial vital parameters, venous blood tests, arterial blood gas analysis, chest x-ray, as well as the result of the nasopharyngeal swab were gathered from the emergency department (ED) examination. (Additional swabs could be requested when the first one was negative but clinical suspicion for COVID-19 was high.) Upon admission to the SICU, a standardized panel of blood tests was performed, which was repeated the next day and then every 48 hours. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed when clinically indicated, at least twice a day, or following a scheduled time in patients undergoing pronation. Charlson Comorbidity Index⁷ and MuLBSTA score⁸ were calculated based on the collected data.

Imaging

Chest ultrasonography was performed in the ED at the time of hospitalization and once a day in the SICU. Pulmonary high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was performed when clinically indicated or when the results of nasopharyngeal swabs and/or x-ray results were discordant with COVID-19 clinical suspicion. Contrast CT was performed when pulmonary embolism was suspected.

Medical Therapy

Hydroxychloroquine, antiviral agents, tocilizumab, and ruxolitinib were used in the early phase of the pandemic, then were dismissed after evidence of no efficacy.^9-11 Steroids and low-molecular-weight heparin were used afterward. Enoxaparin was used at the standard prophylactic dosage, and 70% of the anticoagulant dosage was also adopted in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 and D-dimer values >3 times the normal value.^12-14 Antibiotics were given when a bacterial superinfection was suspected.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Oxygen support or noninvasive ventilation were started based on patients’ respiratory efficacy, estimated by respiratory rate and the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio).^15,16 Oxygen support was delivered through nasal cannula, Venturi mask, or reservoir mask. Noninvasive ventilation was performed by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) when the P/F ratio was <250 or the respiratory rate was >25 breaths per minute, using the helmet interface.^5,17 Prone positioning during CPAP^18-20 was adopted in patients meeting the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) criteria²¹ and having persistence of respiratory distress and P/F <300 after a 1-hour trial of CPAP.

The prone position was maintained based on patient tolerance. P/F ratio was measured before pronation (T0), after 1 hour of prone position (T1), before resupination (T2), and 6 hours after resupination (T3). With the same timing, the patient was asked to rate their comfort in each position, from 0 (lack of comfort) to 10 (optimal comfort). Delta P/F was defined as the difference between P/F at T3 and basal P/F at T0.

Outcomes

Positive outcomes were defined as patient discharge from the SICU or transfer to a lower-intensity care ward for treatment continuation. Negative outcomes were defined as need for transfer to the ICU, transfer to another ward for palliation, or death in the SICU.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR); normal distribution of variables was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were reported as absolute number and percentage. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables between groups, and chi-square test with continuity correction was used for categorical variables. The variables that were most significantly associated with a negative outcome on the univariate analysis were included in a stepwise logistic regression analysis, in order to identify independent predictors of patient outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using JASP (JASP Team) software.

Study Population

Of the 88 patients included in the study, 70% were male; the median age was 66 years (IQR, 60-77). In most patients, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was derived from a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Six patients, however, maintained a negative swab at all determinations but had clinical and imaging features strongly suggesting COVID-19. No patients met the exclusion criteria. Most patients came from the ED (n = 58 [66%]) or general wards (n = 22 [25%]), while few were transferred from the ICU (n = 8 [9%]). The median length of stay in the SICU was 4 days (IQR, 2-7). An epidemiological link to affected persons or a known virus exposure was identifiable in 37 patients (42%).

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

The clinical and anthropometric characteristics of patients are shown in Table 1. Hypertension and smoking habits were prevalent in our population, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3. Most patients experienced fever, dyspnea, and cough during the days before hospitalization.

Laboratory data showed a marked inflammatory milieu in all studied patients, both at baseline and after 24 and 72 hours. Lymphopenia was observed, along with a significant increase of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CPR), and D-dimer, and a mild increase of procalcitonin. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values were also increased, with normal troponin I values (Table 2).

Medical Therapy

Most patients (89%) received hydroxychloroquine, whereas steroids were used in one-third of the population (36%). Immunomodulators (tocilizumab and ruxolitinib) were restricted to 12 patients (14%). Empirical antiviral therapy was introduced in the first 41 patients (47%). Enoxaparin was the default agent for thromboembolism prophylaxis, and 6 patients (7%) received 70% of the anticoagulating dose.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Basal median P/F ratio was 253 (IQR, 218-291), and respiratory rate at triage was 20 breaths/min (IQR, 16-28), underlining a moderate-to-severe respiratory insufficiency at presentation. A total of 69 patients (78%) underwent CPAP, with a median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10.0 cm H₂O (IQR, 7.5-10.0) and fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio₂) of 0.40 (IQR, 0.40-0.50). In 37 patients (42%) who received ongoing CPAP, prone positioning was adopted. In this subgroup, respiratory rate was not significantly different from baseline to resupination (24 vs 25 breaths/min). The median P/F improved from 197 (IQR, 154-236) at baseline to 217 (IQR, 180-262) after pronation (the duration of the prone position was variable, depending on patients’ tolerance: 1 to 6 hours or every pronation cycle). The median delta P/F ratio was 39.4 (IQR, –17.0 to 78.0).

Outcomes

A total of 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome in the SICU: 8 patients (9%) died, having no clinical indication for higher-intensity care; 6 patients (7%) were transferred to general wards for palliation; and 14 patients (16%) needed an upgrade of cure intensity and were transferred to the ICU. Of these 14 patients, 9 died in the ICU. The total in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients, including patients transferred from the SICU to general wards in fair condition, was 27% (n = 24). Clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics between the 2 groups are shown in Table 4.

Patients who had a negative outcome were significantly older and had more comorbidities, as suggested by a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (reflecting the mortality risk based on age and comorbidities). The median MuLBSTA score, which estimates the 90-day mortality risk from viral pneumonia, was also higher in patients who had a negative outcome (9.33%). Symptom occurrence was not different in patients with a negative outcome (apart from cough, which was less frequent), but these patients underwent hospitalization earlier—since the appearance of their first COVID-19 symptoms—compared to patients who had a positive outcome. No difference was found in antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers among outcome groups.

More pronounced laboratory abnormalities were found in patients who had a negative outcome, compared to patients who had a positive outcome: lower lymphocytes and higher C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, D-dimer, LDH, and NT-proBNP. We found no differences in the radiological distribution of pulmonary involvement in patients who had negative or positive outcomes, nor in the adopted medical treatment.

Data showed no difference in CPAP implementation in the 2 groups. However, prone positioning had been more frequently adopted in the group of patients who had a positive outcome, compared with patients who had a negative outcome. No differences of basal P/F were found in patients who had a negative or positive outcome, but the median P/F after 6 hours of prone position was significantly lower in patients who had a negative outcome. The delta P/F ratio did not differ in the 2 groups of patients.

Multivariate Analysis

A logistic regression model was created, including the variables significantly associated with outcomes in the univariate analysis (age, sex, history of diabetes, lymphocytes, CRP, procalcitonin, LDH, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer). In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a negative outcome were history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P =.015), high D-dimer values (OR, 1.28; CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), high LDH values (OR, 1.003; CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and low lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Discussion

Role of Subintensive Units and Mortality

The novelty of our report is its attempt to investigate the specific group of COVID-19 patients admitted to a SICU. In Italy, SICUs receive acutely ill, spontaneously breathing patients who need (invasive) hemodynamic monitoring, vasoactive medication, renal replacement therapy, chest- tube placement, thrombolysis, and respiratory noninvasive support. The nurse-to-patient ratio is higher than for general wards (usually 1 nurse to every 4 or 5 patients), though lower than for ICUs. In northern Italy, a great number of COVID-19 patients have required this kind of high-intensity care during the pandemic: Noninvasive ventilation support had to be maintained for several days, pronation maneuvers required a high number of people 2 or 3 times a day, and strict monitoring had to be assured. The SICU setting allows patients to buy time as a bridge to progressive reduction of pulmonary involvement, sometimes preventing the need for intubation.

The high prevalence of negative outcomes in the SICU underlines the complexity of COVID-19 patients in this setting. In fact, published data about mortality for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are similar to ours.^22,23

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

Our analysis confirmed a high rate of comorbidities in COVID-19 patients²⁴ and their prognostic role with age.^25,26 A marked inflammatory milieu was a negative prognostic indicator, and associated concomitant bacterial superinfection could have led to a worse prognosis (procalcitonin was associated with negative outcomes).²⁷ The cardiovascular system was nevertheless stressed, as suggested by higher values of NT-proBNP in patients with negative outcomes, which could reflect sepsis-related systemic involvement.²⁸

It is known that the pulmonary damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 has a dynamic radiological and clinical course, with early areas of subsegmental consolidation, and bilateral ground-glass opacities predominating later in the course of the disease.²⁹ This could explain why in our population we found no specific radiological pattern leading to a worse outcome.

Medical Therapy

No specific pharmacological therapy was found to be associated with a positive outcome in our study, just like antiviral and immunomodulator therapies failed to demonstrate effectiveness in subsequent pandemic surges. The low statistical power of our study did not allow us to give insight into the effectiveness of steroids and heparin at any dosage.

PEEP Support and Prone Positioning

Continuous positive airway pressure was initiated in the majority of patients and maintained for several days. This was an absolute novelty, because we rarely had to keep patients in helmets for long. This was feasible thanks to the SICU’s high nurse-to-patient ratio and the possibility of providing monitored sedation. Patients who could no longer tolerate CPAP helmets or did not improve with CPAP support were evaluated with anesthetists for programming further management. No initial data on respiratory rate, level of hypoxemia, or oxygen support need (level of PEEP and Fio₂) could discriminate between outcomes.

Prone positioning during CPAP was implemented in 42% of our study population: P/F ratio amelioration after prone positioning was highly variable, ranging from very good P/F ratio improvements to few responses or no response. No significantly greater delta P/F ratio was seen after the first prone positioning cycle in patients who had a positive outcome, probably due to the small size of our population, but we observed a clear positive trend. Interestingly, patients showing a negative outcome had a lower percentage of long-term responses to prone positioning: 6 hours after resupination, they lost the benefit of prone positioning in terms of P/F ratio amelioration. Similarly, a greater number of patients tolerating prone positioning had a positive outcome. These data give insight on the possible benefits of prone positioning in a noninvasively supported cohort of patients, which has been mentioned in previous studies.^30,31

Outcomes and Variables Associated With Negative Outcomes

After correction for age and sex, we found in multiple regression analysis that higher D-dimer and LDH values, lymphopenia, and history of diabetes were independently associated with a worse outcome. Although our results had low statistical significance, we consider the trend of the obtained odds ratios important from a clinical point of view. These results could lead to greater attention being placed on COVID-19 patients who present with these characteristics upon their arrival to the ED because they have increased risk of death or intensive care need. Clinicians should consider SICU admission for these patients in order to guarantee closer monitoring and possibly more aggressive ventilatory treatments, earlier pronation, or earlier transfer to the ICU.

Limitations

The major limitation to our study is undoubtedly its statistical power, due to its relatively low patient population. Particularly, the small number of patients who underwent pronation did not allow speculation about the efficacy of this technique, although preliminary data seem promising. However, ours is among the first studies regarding patients with COVID-19 admitted to a SICU, and these preliminary data truthfully describe the Italian, and perhaps international, experience with the first surge of the pandemic.

Conclusions

Our data highlight the primary role of the SICU in COVID-19 in adequately treating critically ill patients who have high care needs different from intubation, and who require noninvasive ventilation for prolonged times as well as frequent pronation cycles. This setting of care may represent a valid, reliable, and effective option for critically ill respiratory patients. History of diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH values are independently associated with negative outcomes, and patients presenting with these characteristics should be strictly monitored.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Informatica System S.R.L., as well as Allessando Mendolia for the pro bono creation of the ISCovidCollect data collecting app.

Corresponding author: Sara Abram, MD, via Coppino, 12100 Cuneo, Italy; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.

From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy (Drs. Abram, Tosello, Emanuele Bernardi, Allione, Cavalot, Dutto, Corsini, Martini, Sciolla, Sara Bernardi, and Lauria). From the School of Emergency Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy (Drs. Paglietta and Giamello).

Objective: This retrospective and prospective cohort study was designed to describe the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) admitted to subintensive care units (SICU) and to identify the variables associated with outcomes. SICUs have been extremely stressed during the pandemic, but most data regarding critically ill COVID-19 patients come from intensive care units (ICUs). Studies about COVID-19 patients in SICUs are lacking.

Setting and participants: The study included 88 COVID-19 patients admitted to our SICU in Cuneo, Italy, between March and May 2020.

Measurements: Clinical and ventilatory data were collected, and patients were divided by outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis examined the variables associated with negative outcomes (transfer to the ICU, palliation, or death in a SICU).

Results: A total of 60 patients (68%) had a positive outcome, and 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome; 69 patients (78%) underwent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Pronation (n = 37 [42%]) had been more frequently adopted in patients who had a positive outcome vs a negative outcome (n = 30 [50%] vs n = 7 [25%]; P = .048), and the median (interquartile range) Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio after 6 hours of prone positioning was lower in patients who had a negative outcome vs a positive outcome (144 [140-168] vs 249 [195-268], P = .006). Independent predictors of a negative outcome were diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P = .015), higher D-dimer (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), higher lactate dehydrogenase level (OR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and lower lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Conclusion: SICUs have a fundamental role in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, who require long-term CPAP and pronation cycles. Diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH levels are associated with negative outcomes.

Keywords: emergency medicine, noninvasive ventilation, prone position, continuous positive airway pressure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to large increases in hospital admissions. Subintensive care units (SICUs) are among the wards most under pressure worldwide,¹ dealing with the increased number of critically ill patients who need noninvasive ventilation, as well as serving as the best alternative to overfilled intensive care units (ICUs). In Italy, SICUs are playing a fundamental role in the management of COVID-19 patients, providing early treatment of respiratory failure by continuous noninvasive ventilation in order to reduce the need for intubation.^2-5 Nevertheless, the great majority of available data about critically ill COVID-19 patients comes from ICUs. Full studies about outcomes of patients in SICUs are lacking and need to be conducted.

We sought to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to our SICU for COVID-19 to describe the treatments they needed and their impact on prognosis, and to identify the variables associated with patient outcomes.

Methods

Study Design

This cohort study used data from patients who were admitted in the very first weeks of the pandemic. Data were collected retrospectively as well as prospectively, since the ethical committee approved our project. The quality and quantity of data in the 2 groups were comparable.

Data were collected from electronic and written medical records gathered during the patient’s entire stay in our SICU. Data were entered in a database with limited and controlled access. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committees (ID: MEDURG10).

Study Population

We studied 88 consecutive patients admitted to the SICU of the Santa Croce e Carle Teaching Hospital, Cuneo, Italy, for COVID-19, from March 8 to May 1, 2020. The diagnosis was based on acute respiratory failure associated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on nasopharyngeal swab or tracheal aspirate and/or typical COVID-19 features on a pulmonary computed tomography (CT) scan.⁶ Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years and patient denial of permission to use their data for research purposes (the great majority of patients could actively give consent; for patients who were too sick to do so, family members were asked whether they were aware of any reason why the patient would deny consent).

The past medical history and recent symptoms description were obtained by manually reviewing medical records. Epidemiological exposure was defined as contact with SARS-CoV-2–positive people or staying in an epidemic outbreak area. Initial vital parameters, venous blood tests, arterial blood gas analysis, chest x-ray, as well as the result of the nasopharyngeal swab were gathered from the emergency department (ED) examination. (Additional swabs could be requested when the first one was negative but clinical suspicion for COVID-19 was high.) Upon admission to the SICU, a standardized panel of blood tests was performed, which was repeated the next day and then every 48 hours. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed when clinically indicated, at least twice a day, or following a scheduled time in patients undergoing pronation. Charlson Comorbidity Index⁷ and MuLBSTA score⁸ were calculated based on the collected data.

Imaging

Chest ultrasonography was performed in the ED at the time of hospitalization and once a day in the SICU. Pulmonary high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was performed when clinically indicated or when the results of nasopharyngeal swabs and/or x-ray results were discordant with COVID-19 clinical suspicion. Contrast CT was performed when pulmonary embolism was suspected.

Medical Therapy

Hydroxychloroquine, antiviral agents, tocilizumab, and ruxolitinib were used in the early phase of the pandemic, then were dismissed after evidence of no efficacy.^9-11 Steroids and low-molecular-weight heparin were used afterward. Enoxaparin was used at the standard prophylactic dosage, and 70% of the anticoagulant dosage was also adopted in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 and D-dimer values >3 times the normal value.^12-14 Antibiotics were given when a bacterial superinfection was suspected.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Oxygen support or noninvasive ventilation were started based on patients’ respiratory efficacy, estimated by respiratory rate and the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio).^15,16 Oxygen support was delivered through nasal cannula, Venturi mask, or reservoir mask. Noninvasive ventilation was performed by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) when the P/F ratio was <250 or the respiratory rate was >25 breaths per minute, using the helmet interface.^5,17 Prone positioning during CPAP^18-20 was adopted in patients meeting the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) criteria²¹ and having persistence of respiratory distress and P/F <300 after a 1-hour trial of CPAP.

The prone position was maintained based on patient tolerance. P/F ratio was measured before pronation (T0), after 1 hour of prone position (T1), before resupination (T2), and 6 hours after resupination (T3). With the same timing, the patient was asked to rate their comfort in each position, from 0 (lack of comfort) to 10 (optimal comfort). Delta P/F was defined as the difference between P/F at T3 and basal P/F at T0.

Outcomes

Positive outcomes were defined as patient discharge from the SICU or transfer to a lower-intensity care ward for treatment continuation. Negative outcomes were defined as need for transfer to the ICU, transfer to another ward for palliation, or death in the SICU.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR); normal distribution of variables was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were reported as absolute number and percentage. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables between groups, and chi-square test with continuity correction was used for categorical variables. The variables that were most significantly associated with a negative outcome on the univariate analysis were included in a stepwise logistic regression analysis, in order to identify independent predictors of patient outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using JASP (JASP Team) software.

Study Population

Of the 88 patients included in the study, 70% were male; the median age was 66 years (IQR, 60-77). In most patients, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was derived from a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Six patients, however, maintained a negative swab at all determinations but had clinical and imaging features strongly suggesting COVID-19. No patients met the exclusion criteria. Most patients came from the ED (n = 58 [66%]) or general wards (n = 22 [25%]), while few were transferred from the ICU (n = 8 [9%]). The median length of stay in the SICU was 4 days (IQR, 2-7). An epidemiological link to affected persons or a known virus exposure was identifiable in 37 patients (42%).

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

The clinical and anthropometric characteristics of patients are shown in Table 1. Hypertension and smoking habits were prevalent in our population, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3. Most patients experienced fever, dyspnea, and cough during the days before hospitalization.

Laboratory data showed a marked inflammatory milieu in all studied patients, both at baseline and after 24 and 72 hours. Lymphopenia was observed, along with a significant increase of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CPR), and D-dimer, and a mild increase of procalcitonin. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values were also increased, with normal troponin I values (Table 2).

Medical Therapy

Most patients (89%) received hydroxychloroquine, whereas steroids were used in one-third of the population (36%). Immunomodulators (tocilizumab and ruxolitinib) were restricted to 12 patients (14%). Empirical antiviral therapy was introduced in the first 41 patients (47%). Enoxaparin was the default agent for thromboembolism prophylaxis, and 6 patients (7%) received 70% of the anticoagulating dose.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Basal median P/F ratio was 253 (IQR, 218-291), and respiratory rate at triage was 20 breaths/min (IQR, 16-28), underlining a moderate-to-severe respiratory insufficiency at presentation. A total of 69 patients (78%) underwent CPAP, with a median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10.0 cm H₂O (IQR, 7.5-10.0) and fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio₂) of 0.40 (IQR, 0.40-0.50). In 37 patients (42%) who received ongoing CPAP, prone positioning was adopted. In this subgroup, respiratory rate was not significantly different from baseline to resupination (24 vs 25 breaths/min). The median P/F improved from 197 (IQR, 154-236) at baseline to 217 (IQR, 180-262) after pronation (the duration of the prone position was variable, depending on patients’ tolerance: 1 to 6 hours or every pronation cycle). The median delta P/F ratio was 39.4 (IQR, –17.0 to 78.0).

Outcomes

A total of 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome in the SICU: 8 patients (9%) died, having no clinical indication for higher-intensity care; 6 patients (7%) were transferred to general wards for palliation; and 14 patients (16%) needed an upgrade of cure intensity and were transferred to the ICU. Of these 14 patients, 9 died in the ICU. The total in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients, including patients transferred from the SICU to general wards in fair condition, was 27% (n = 24). Clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics between the 2 groups are shown in Table 4.

Patients who had a negative outcome were significantly older and had more comorbidities, as suggested by a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (reflecting the mortality risk based on age and comorbidities). The median MuLBSTA score, which estimates the 90-day mortality risk from viral pneumonia, was also higher in patients who had a negative outcome (9.33%). Symptom occurrence was not different in patients with a negative outcome (apart from cough, which was less frequent), but these patients underwent hospitalization earlier—since the appearance of their first COVID-19 symptoms—compared to patients who had a positive outcome. No difference was found in antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers among outcome groups.

More pronounced laboratory abnormalities were found in patients who had a negative outcome, compared to patients who had a positive outcome: lower lymphocytes and higher C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, D-dimer, LDH, and NT-proBNP. We found no differences in the radiological distribution of pulmonary involvement in patients who had negative or positive outcomes, nor in the adopted medical treatment.

Data showed no difference in CPAP implementation in the 2 groups. However, prone positioning had been more frequently adopted in the group of patients who had a positive outcome, compared with patients who had a negative outcome. No differences of basal P/F were found in patients who had a negative or positive outcome, but the median P/F after 6 hours of prone position was significantly lower in patients who had a negative outcome. The delta P/F ratio did not differ in the 2 groups of patients.

Multivariate Analysis

A logistic regression model was created, including the variables significantly associated with outcomes in the univariate analysis (age, sex, history of diabetes, lymphocytes, CRP, procalcitonin, LDH, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer). In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a negative outcome were history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P =.015), high D-dimer values (OR, 1.28; CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), high LDH values (OR, 1.003; CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and low lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Discussion

Role of Subintensive Units and Mortality

The novelty of our report is its attempt to investigate the specific group of COVID-19 patients admitted to a SICU. In Italy, SICUs receive acutely ill, spontaneously breathing patients who need (invasive) hemodynamic monitoring, vasoactive medication, renal replacement therapy, chest- tube placement, thrombolysis, and respiratory noninvasive support. The nurse-to-patient ratio is higher than for general wards (usually 1 nurse to every 4 or 5 patients), though lower than for ICUs. In northern Italy, a great number of COVID-19 patients have required this kind of high-intensity care during the pandemic: Noninvasive ventilation support had to be maintained for several days, pronation maneuvers required a high number of people 2 or 3 times a day, and strict monitoring had to be assured. The SICU setting allows patients to buy time as a bridge to progressive reduction of pulmonary involvement, sometimes preventing the need for intubation.

The high prevalence of negative outcomes in the SICU underlines the complexity of COVID-19 patients in this setting. In fact, published data about mortality for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are similar to ours.^22,23

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

Our analysis confirmed a high rate of comorbidities in COVID-19 patients²⁴ and their prognostic role with age.^25,26 A marked inflammatory milieu was a negative prognostic indicator, and associated concomitant bacterial superinfection could have led to a worse prognosis (procalcitonin was associated with negative outcomes).²⁷ The cardiovascular system was nevertheless stressed, as suggested by higher values of NT-proBNP in patients with negative outcomes, which could reflect sepsis-related systemic involvement.²⁸

It is known that the pulmonary damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 has a dynamic radiological and clinical course, with early areas of subsegmental consolidation, and bilateral ground-glass opacities predominating later in the course of the disease.²⁹ This could explain why in our population we found no specific radiological pattern leading to a worse outcome.

Medical Therapy

No specific pharmacological therapy was found to be associated with a positive outcome in our study, just like antiviral and immunomodulator therapies failed to demonstrate effectiveness in subsequent pandemic surges. The low statistical power of our study did not allow us to give insight into the effectiveness of steroids and heparin at any dosage.

PEEP Support and Prone Positioning

Continuous positive airway pressure was initiated in the majority of patients and maintained for several days. This was an absolute novelty, because we rarely had to keep patients in helmets for long. This was feasible thanks to the SICU’s high nurse-to-patient ratio and the possibility of providing monitored sedation. Patients who could no longer tolerate CPAP helmets or did not improve with CPAP support were evaluated with anesthetists for programming further management. No initial data on respiratory rate, level of hypoxemia, or oxygen support need (level of PEEP and Fio₂) could discriminate between outcomes.

Prone positioning during CPAP was implemented in 42% of our study population: P/F ratio amelioration after prone positioning was highly variable, ranging from very good P/F ratio improvements to few responses or no response. No significantly greater delta P/F ratio was seen after the first prone positioning cycle in patients who had a positive outcome, probably due to the small size of our population, but we observed a clear positive trend. Interestingly, patients showing a negative outcome had a lower percentage of long-term responses to prone positioning: 6 hours after resupination, they lost the benefit of prone positioning in terms of P/F ratio amelioration. Similarly, a greater number of patients tolerating prone positioning had a positive outcome. These data give insight on the possible benefits of prone positioning in a noninvasively supported cohort of patients, which has been mentioned in previous studies.^30,31

Outcomes and Variables Associated With Negative Outcomes

After correction for age and sex, we found in multiple regression analysis that higher D-dimer and LDH values, lymphopenia, and history of diabetes were independently associated with a worse outcome. Although our results had low statistical significance, we consider the trend of the obtained odds ratios important from a clinical point of view. These results could lead to greater attention being placed on COVID-19 patients who present with these characteristics upon their arrival to the ED because they have increased risk of death or intensive care need. Clinicians should consider SICU admission for these patients in order to guarantee closer monitoring and possibly more aggressive ventilatory treatments, earlier pronation, or earlier transfer to the ICU.

Limitations

The major limitation to our study is undoubtedly its statistical power, due to its relatively low patient population. Particularly, the small number of patients who underwent pronation did not allow speculation about the efficacy of this technique, although preliminary data seem promising. However, ours is among the first studies regarding patients with COVID-19 admitted to a SICU, and these preliminary data truthfully describe the Italian, and perhaps international, experience with the first surge of the pandemic.

Conclusions

Our data highlight the primary role of the SICU in COVID-19 in adequately treating critically ill patients who have high care needs different from intubation, and who require noninvasive ventilation for prolonged times as well as frequent pronation cycles. This setting of care may represent a valid, reliable, and effective option for critically ill respiratory patients. History of diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH values are independently associated with negative outcomes, and patients presenting with these characteristics should be strictly monitored.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Informatica System S.R.L., as well as Allessando Mendolia for the pro bono creation of the ISCovidCollect data collecting app.

Corresponding author: Sara Abram, MD, via Coppino, 12100 Cuneo, Italy; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.

From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy (Drs. Abram, Tosello, Emanuele Bernardi, Allione, Cavalot, Dutto, Corsini, Martini, Sciolla, Sara Bernardi, and Lauria). From the School of Emergency Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy (Drs. Paglietta and Giamello).

Objective: This retrospective and prospective cohort study was designed to describe the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) admitted to subintensive care units (SICU) and to identify the variables associated with outcomes. SICUs have been extremely stressed during the pandemic, but most data regarding critically ill COVID-19 patients come from intensive care units (ICUs). Studies about COVID-19 patients in SICUs are lacking.

Setting and participants: The study included 88 COVID-19 patients admitted to our SICU in Cuneo, Italy, between March and May 2020.

Measurements: Clinical and ventilatory data were collected, and patients were divided by outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis examined the variables associated with negative outcomes (transfer to the ICU, palliation, or death in a SICU).

Results: A total of 60 patients (68%) had a positive outcome, and 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome; 69 patients (78%) underwent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Pronation (n = 37 [42%]) had been more frequently adopted in patients who had a positive outcome vs a negative outcome (n = 30 [50%] vs n = 7 [25%]; P = .048), and the median (interquartile range) Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio after 6 hours of prone positioning was lower in patients who had a negative outcome vs a positive outcome (144 [140-168] vs 249 [195-268], P = .006). Independent predictors of a negative outcome were diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P = .015), higher D-dimer (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), higher lactate dehydrogenase level (OR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and lower lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Conclusion: SICUs have a fundamental role in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, who require long-term CPAP and pronation cycles. Diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH levels are associated with negative outcomes.

Keywords: emergency medicine, noninvasive ventilation, prone position, continuous positive airway pressure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to large increases in hospital admissions. Subintensive care units (SICUs) are among the wards most under pressure worldwide,¹ dealing with the increased number of critically ill patients who need noninvasive ventilation, as well as serving as the best alternative to overfilled intensive care units (ICUs). In Italy, SICUs are playing a fundamental role in the management of COVID-19 patients, providing early treatment of respiratory failure by continuous noninvasive ventilation in order to reduce the need for intubation.^2-5 Nevertheless, the great majority of available data about critically ill COVID-19 patients comes from ICUs. Full studies about outcomes of patients in SICUs are lacking and need to be conducted.

We sought to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to our SICU for COVID-19 to describe the treatments they needed and their impact on prognosis, and to identify the variables associated with patient outcomes.

Methods

Study Design

This cohort study used data from patients who were admitted in the very first weeks of the pandemic. Data were collected retrospectively as well as prospectively, since the ethical committee approved our project. The quality and quantity of data in the 2 groups were comparable.

Data were collected from electronic and written medical records gathered during the patient’s entire stay in our SICU. Data were entered in a database with limited and controlled access. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committees (ID: MEDURG10).

Study Population

We studied 88 consecutive patients admitted to the SICU of the Santa Croce e Carle Teaching Hospital, Cuneo, Italy, for COVID-19, from March 8 to May 1, 2020. The diagnosis was based on acute respiratory failure associated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on nasopharyngeal swab or tracheal aspirate and/or typical COVID-19 features on a pulmonary computed tomography (CT) scan.⁶ Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years and patient denial of permission to use their data for research purposes (the great majority of patients could actively give consent; for patients who were too sick to do so, family members were asked whether they were aware of any reason why the patient would deny consent).

The past medical history and recent symptoms description were obtained by manually reviewing medical records. Epidemiological exposure was defined as contact with SARS-CoV-2–positive people or staying in an epidemic outbreak area. Initial vital parameters, venous blood tests, arterial blood gas analysis, chest x-ray, as well as the result of the nasopharyngeal swab were gathered from the emergency department (ED) examination. (Additional swabs could be requested when the first one was negative but clinical suspicion for COVID-19 was high.) Upon admission to the SICU, a standardized panel of blood tests was performed, which was repeated the next day and then every 48 hours. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed when clinically indicated, at least twice a day, or following a scheduled time in patients undergoing pronation. Charlson Comorbidity Index⁷ and MuLBSTA score⁸ were calculated based on the collected data.

Imaging

Chest ultrasonography was performed in the ED at the time of hospitalization and once a day in the SICU. Pulmonary high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was performed when clinically indicated or when the results of nasopharyngeal swabs and/or x-ray results were discordant with COVID-19 clinical suspicion. Contrast CT was performed when pulmonary embolism was suspected.

Medical Therapy

Hydroxychloroquine, antiviral agents, tocilizumab, and ruxolitinib were used in the early phase of the pandemic, then were dismissed after evidence of no efficacy.^9-11 Steroids and low-molecular-weight heparin were used afterward. Enoxaparin was used at the standard prophylactic dosage, and 70% of the anticoagulant dosage was also adopted in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 and D-dimer values >3 times the normal value.^12-14 Antibiotics were given when a bacterial superinfection was suspected.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Oxygen support or noninvasive ventilation were started based on patients’ respiratory efficacy, estimated by respiratory rate and the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio).^15,16 Oxygen support was delivered through nasal cannula, Venturi mask, or reservoir mask. Noninvasive ventilation was performed by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) when the P/F ratio was <250 or the respiratory rate was >25 breaths per minute, using the helmet interface.^5,17 Prone positioning during CPAP^18-20 was adopted in patients meeting the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) criteria²¹ and having persistence of respiratory distress and P/F <300 after a 1-hour trial of CPAP.

The prone position was maintained based on patient tolerance. P/F ratio was measured before pronation (T0), after 1 hour of prone position (T1), before resupination (T2), and 6 hours after resupination (T3). With the same timing, the patient was asked to rate their comfort in each position, from 0 (lack of comfort) to 10 (optimal comfort). Delta P/F was defined as the difference between P/F at T3 and basal P/F at T0.

Outcomes

Positive outcomes were defined as patient discharge from the SICU or transfer to a lower-intensity care ward for treatment continuation. Negative outcomes were defined as need for transfer to the ICU, transfer to another ward for palliation, or death in the SICU.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR); normal distribution of variables was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were reported as absolute number and percentage. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables between groups, and chi-square test with continuity correction was used for categorical variables. The variables that were most significantly associated with a negative outcome on the univariate analysis were included in a stepwise logistic regression analysis, in order to identify independent predictors of patient outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using JASP (JASP Team) software.

Study Population

Of the 88 patients included in the study, 70% were male; the median age was 66 years (IQR, 60-77). In most patients, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was derived from a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Six patients, however, maintained a negative swab at all determinations but had clinical and imaging features strongly suggesting COVID-19. No patients met the exclusion criteria. Most patients came from the ED (n = 58 [66%]) or general wards (n = 22 [25%]), while few were transferred from the ICU (n = 8 [9%]). The median length of stay in the SICU was 4 days (IQR, 2-7). An epidemiological link to affected persons or a known virus exposure was identifiable in 37 patients (42%).

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

The clinical and anthropometric characteristics of patients are shown in Table 1. Hypertension and smoking habits were prevalent in our population, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3. Most patients experienced fever, dyspnea, and cough during the days before hospitalization.

Laboratory data showed a marked inflammatory milieu in all studied patients, both at baseline and after 24 and 72 hours. Lymphopenia was observed, along with a significant increase of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CPR), and D-dimer, and a mild increase of procalcitonin. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values were also increased, with normal troponin I values (Table 2).

Medical Therapy

Most patients (89%) received hydroxychloroquine, whereas steroids were used in one-third of the population (36%). Immunomodulators (tocilizumab and ruxolitinib) were restricted to 12 patients (14%). Empirical antiviral therapy was introduced in the first 41 patients (47%). Enoxaparin was the default agent for thromboembolism prophylaxis, and 6 patients (7%) received 70% of the anticoagulating dose.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Basal median P/F ratio was 253 (IQR, 218-291), and respiratory rate at triage was 20 breaths/min (IQR, 16-28), underlining a moderate-to-severe respiratory insufficiency at presentation. A total of 69 patients (78%) underwent CPAP, with a median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10.0 cm H₂O (IQR, 7.5-10.0) and fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio₂) of 0.40 (IQR, 0.40-0.50). In 37 patients (42%) who received ongoing CPAP, prone positioning was adopted. In this subgroup, respiratory rate was not significantly different from baseline to resupination (24 vs 25 breaths/min). The median P/F improved from 197 (IQR, 154-236) at baseline to 217 (IQR, 180-262) after pronation (the duration of the prone position was variable, depending on patients’ tolerance: 1 to 6 hours or every pronation cycle). The median delta P/F ratio was 39.4 (IQR, –17.0 to 78.0).

Outcomes

A total of 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome in the SICU: 8 patients (9%) died, having no clinical indication for higher-intensity care; 6 patients (7%) were transferred to general wards for palliation; and 14 patients (16%) needed an upgrade of cure intensity and were transferred to the ICU. Of these 14 patients, 9 died in the ICU. The total in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients, including patients transferred from the SICU to general wards in fair condition, was 27% (n = 24). Clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics between the 2 groups are shown in Table 4.

Patients who had a negative outcome were significantly older and had more comorbidities, as suggested by a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (reflecting the mortality risk based on age and comorbidities). The median MuLBSTA score, which estimates the 90-day mortality risk from viral pneumonia, was also higher in patients who had a negative outcome (9.33%). Symptom occurrence was not different in patients with a negative outcome (apart from cough, which was less frequent), but these patients underwent hospitalization earlier—since the appearance of their first COVID-19 symptoms—compared to patients who had a positive outcome. No difference was found in antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers among outcome groups.

More pronounced laboratory abnormalities were found in patients who had a negative outcome, compared to patients who had a positive outcome: lower lymphocytes and higher C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, D-dimer, LDH, and NT-proBNP. We found no differences in the radiological distribution of pulmonary involvement in patients who had negative or positive outcomes, nor in the adopted medical treatment.

Data showed no difference in CPAP implementation in the 2 groups. However, prone positioning had been more frequently adopted in the group of patients who had a positive outcome, compared with patients who had a negative outcome. No differences of basal P/F were found in patients who had a negative or positive outcome, but the median P/F after 6 hours of prone position was significantly lower in patients who had a negative outcome. The delta P/F ratio did not differ in the 2 groups of patients.

Multivariate Analysis

A logistic regression model was created, including the variables significantly associated with outcomes in the univariate analysis (age, sex, history of diabetes, lymphocytes, CRP, procalcitonin, LDH, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer). In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a negative outcome were history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P =.015), high D-dimer values (OR, 1.28; CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), high LDH values (OR, 1.003; CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and low lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Discussion

Role of Subintensive Units and Mortality

The novelty of our report is its attempt to investigate the specific group of COVID-19 patients admitted to a SICU. In Italy, SICUs receive acutely ill, spontaneously breathing patients who need (invasive) hemodynamic monitoring, vasoactive medication, renal replacement therapy, chest- tube placement, thrombolysis, and respiratory noninvasive support. The nurse-to-patient ratio is higher than for general wards (usually 1 nurse to every 4 or 5 patients), though lower than for ICUs. In northern Italy, a great number of COVID-19 patients have required this kind of high-intensity care during the pandemic: Noninvasive ventilation support had to be maintained for several days, pronation maneuvers required a high number of people 2 or 3 times a day, and strict monitoring had to be assured. The SICU setting allows patients to buy time as a bridge to progressive reduction of pulmonary involvement, sometimes preventing the need for intubation.

The high prevalence of negative outcomes in the SICU underlines the complexity of COVID-19 patients in this setting. In fact, published data about mortality for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are similar to ours.^22,23

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

Our analysis confirmed a high rate of comorbidities in COVID-19 patients²⁴ and their prognostic role with age.^25,26 A marked inflammatory milieu was a negative prognostic indicator, and associated concomitant bacterial superinfection could have led to a worse prognosis (procalcitonin was associated with negative outcomes).²⁷ The cardiovascular system was nevertheless stressed, as suggested by higher values of NT-proBNP in patients with negative outcomes, which could reflect sepsis-related systemic involvement.²⁸

It is known that the pulmonary damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 has a dynamic radiological and clinical course, with early areas of subsegmental consolidation, and bilateral ground-glass opacities predominating later in the course of the disease.²⁹ This could explain why in our population we found no specific radiological pattern leading to a worse outcome.

Medical Therapy

No specific pharmacological therapy was found to be associated with a positive outcome in our study, just like antiviral and immunomodulator therapies failed to demonstrate effectiveness in subsequent pandemic surges. The low statistical power of our study did not allow us to give insight into the effectiveness of steroids and heparin at any dosage.

PEEP Support and Prone Positioning

Continuous positive airway pressure was initiated in the majority of patients and maintained for several days. This was an absolute novelty, because we rarely had to keep patients in helmets for long. This was feasible thanks to the SICU’s high nurse-to-patient ratio and the possibility of providing monitored sedation. Patients who could no longer tolerate CPAP helmets or did not improve with CPAP support were evaluated with anesthetists for programming further management. No initial data on respiratory rate, level of hypoxemia, or oxygen support need (level of PEEP and Fio₂) could discriminate between outcomes.

Prone positioning during CPAP was implemented in 42% of our study population: P/F ratio amelioration after prone positioning was highly variable, ranging from very good P/F ratio improvements to few responses or no response. No significantly greater delta P/F ratio was seen after the first prone positioning cycle in patients who had a positive outcome, probably due to the small size of our population, but we observed a clear positive trend. Interestingly, patients showing a negative outcome had a lower percentage of long-term responses to prone positioning: 6 hours after resupination, they lost the benefit of prone positioning in terms of P/F ratio amelioration. Similarly, a greater number of patients tolerating prone positioning had a positive outcome. These data give insight on the possible benefits of prone positioning in a noninvasively supported cohort of patients, which has been mentioned in previous studies.^30,31

Outcomes and Variables Associated With Negative Outcomes

After correction for age and sex, we found in multiple regression analysis that higher D-dimer and LDH values, lymphopenia, and history of diabetes were independently associated with a worse outcome. Although our results had low statistical significance, we consider the trend of the obtained odds ratios important from a clinical point of view. These results could lead to greater attention being placed on COVID-19 patients who present with these characteristics upon their arrival to the ED because they have increased risk of death or intensive care need. Clinicians should consider SICU admission for these patients in order to guarantee closer monitoring and possibly more aggressive ventilatory treatments, earlier pronation, or earlier transfer to the ICU.

Limitations

The major limitation to our study is undoubtedly its statistical power, due to its relatively low patient population. Particularly, the small number of patients who underwent pronation did not allow speculation about the efficacy of this technique, although preliminary data seem promising. However, ours is among the first studies regarding patients with COVID-19 admitted to a SICU, and these preliminary data truthfully describe the Italian, and perhaps international, experience with the first surge of the pandemic.

Conclusions

Our data highlight the primary role of the SICU in COVID-19 in adequately treating critically ill patients who have high care needs different from intubation, and who require noninvasive ventilation for prolonged times as well as frequent pronation cycles. This setting of care may represent a valid, reliable, and effective option for critically ill respiratory patients. History of diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH values are independently associated with negative outcomes, and patients presenting with these characteristics should be strictly monitored.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Informatica System S.R.L., as well as Allessando Mendolia for the pro bono creation of the ISCovidCollect data collecting app.

Corresponding author: Sara Abram, MD, via Coppino, 12100 Cuneo, Italy; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.

Equitable Standards for All Patients in a Crisis

Health care delivered during a pandemic instantiates medicine’s perspectives on the value of human life in clinical scenarios where resource allocation is limited. The COVID-19 pandemic has fostered dialogue and debate around the ethical principles that underly such resource allocation, which generally balance (1) utilitarian optimization of resources, (2) equality or equity in health access, (3) the instrumental value of individuals as agents in society, and (4) prioritizing the “worst off” in their natural history of disease.^1,2 State legislatures and health systems have responded to the challeges posed by COVID-19 by considering both the scarcity of intensive care resources, such as mechanical ventilation and hemodialysis, and the clinical criteria to be used for determining which patients should receive said resources. These crisis guidelines have yielded several concerning themes vis-à-vis equitable distribution of health care resources, particularly when the disability status of patients is considered alongside life-expectancy or quality of life.³

Crisis standards of care (CSC) prioritize population-level health under a utilitarian paradigm, explicitly maximizing “life-years” within a population of patients rather than the life of any individual patient.⁴ Debated during initial COVID surges, these CSC guidelines have recently been enacted at the state level in several settings, including Alaska and Idaho.⁵ In a setting with scarce intensive care resources, balancing health equity in access to these resources against population-based survival metrics has been a challenge for commissions considering CSC.^6,7 This need for balance has further promoted systemic views of “disability,” raising concern for structural “ableism” and highlighting the need for greater “ability awareness” in clinicians’ continued professional learning.

Structural Ableism: Defining Perspectives to Address Health Equity

Ableism has been defined as “a system that places value on people’s bodies and minds, based on societally constructed ideas of normalcy, intelligence, excellence, and productivity…[and] leads to people and society determining who is valuable and worthy based on their appearance and/or their ability to satisfactorily [re]produce, excel, and ‘behave.’”⁸ Regarding CSC, concerns about systemic bias in guideline design were raised early by disability advocacy groups during comment periods.^9,10 More broadly, concerns about ableism sit alongside many deeply rooted societal perspectives of disabled individuals as pitiable or, conversely, heroic for having “overcome” their disability in some way. As a physician who sits in a manual wheelchair with paraplegia and mobility impairment, I have equally been subject to inappropriate bias and inappropriate praise for living in a wheelchair. I have also wondered, alongside my patients living with different levels of mobility or ability, why others often view us as “worse off.” Addressing directly whether disabled individuals are “worse off,” disability rights attorney and advocate Harriet McBryde Johnson has articulated a predominant sentiment among persons living with unique or different abilities:

Are we “worse off”? I don’t think so. Not in any meaningful way. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them. We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs.¹¹

Many physician colleagues have common, invisible diseases such as diabetes and heart disease; fewer colleagues share conditions that are as visible as my spinal cord injury, as readily apparent to patients upon my entry to their hospital rooms. This simultaneous and inescapable identity as both patient and provider has afforded me wonderful doctor-patient interactions, particularly with those patients who appreciate how my patient experience impacts my ability to partially understand theirs. However, this simultaneous identity as doctor and patient also informed my personal and professional concerns regarding structural ableism as I considered scoring my own acutely ill hospital medicine patients with CSC triage scores in April 2020.

As a practicing hospital medicine physician, I have been emboldened by the efforts of my fellow clinicians amid COVID-19; their efforts have reaffirmed all the reasons I pursued a career in medicine. However, when I heard my clinical colleagues’ first explanation of the Massachusetts CSC guidelines in April 2020, I raised my hand to ask whether the “life-years” to which the guidelines referred were quality-adjusted. My concern regarding the implicit use of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or disability-adjusted life years in clinical decision-making and implementation of these guidelines was validated when no clinical leaders could address this question directly. Sitting on the CSC committee for my hospital during this time was an honor. However, it was disconcerting to hear many clinicians’ unease when estimating mean survival for common chronic diseases, ranging from end-stage renal disease to advanced heart failure. If my expert colleagues, clinical specialists in kidney and heart disease, could not confidently apply mean survival estimates to multimorbid hospital patients, then idiosyncratic clinical judgment was sure to have a heavy hand in any calculation of “life-years.” Thus, my primary concern was that clinicians using triage heuristics would be subject to bias, regardless of their intention, and negatively adjust for the quality of a disabled life in their CSC triage scoring. My secondary concern was that the CSC guidelines themselves included systemic bias against disabled individuals.

According to CSC schema, triage scores index heavily on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores to define short-term survival; SOFA scores are partially driven by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Following professional and public comment periods, CSC guidelines in Massachusetts were revised to, among other critical points of revision, change prognostic estimation via “life years” in favor of generic estimation of short-term survival (Table). I wondered, if I presented to an emergency department with severe COVID-19 and was scored with the GCS for the purpose of making a CSC ventilator triage decision, how would my complete paraplegia and lower-extremity motor impairment be accounted for by a clinician assessing “best motor response” in the GCS? The purpose of these scores is to act algorithmically, to guide clinicians whose cognitive load and time limitations may not allow for adjustment of these algorithms based on the individual patient in front of them. Individualization of clinical decisions is part of medicine’s art, but is difficult in the best of times and no easier during a crisis in care delivery. As CSC triage scores were amended and addended throughout 2020, I returned to the COVID wards, time and again wondering, “What have we learned about systemic bias and health inequity in the CSC process and the pandemic broadly, with specific regard to disability?”

Ability Awareness: Room for Our Improvement

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that clinical judgment is impaired by structural ableism. In seminal work on this topic, Gerhart et al¹² demonstrated that clinicians considered spinal cord injury (SCI) survivors to have low self-perceptions of worthiness, overall negative attitudes, and low self-esteem as compared to able-bodied individuals. However, surveyed SCI survivors generally had similar self-perceptions of worth and positivity as compared to ”able-bodied” clinicians.¹² For providers who care for persons with disabilities, the majority (82.4%) have rated their disabled patients’ quality of life as worse.¹³ It is no wonder that patients with disabilities are more likely to feel that their doctor-patient relationship is impacted by lack of understanding, negative sentiment, or simple lack of listening.¹⁴ Generally, this poor doctor-patient relationship with disabled patients is exacerbated by poor exposure of medical trainees to disability education; only 34.2% of internal medicine residents recall any form of disability education in medical school, while only 52% of medical school deans report having disability educational content in their curricula.^15,16 There is a similar lack of disability representation in the population of medical trainees themselves. While approximately 20% of the American population lives with a disability, less than 2% of American medical students have a disability.^17-19

While representation of disabled populations in medical practice remains poor, disabled patients are generally less likely to receive age-appropriate prevention, appropriate access to care, and equal access to treatment.^20-22 “Diagnostic overshadowing” refers to clinicians’ attribution of nonspecific signs or symptoms to a patient’s chronic disability as opposed to acute illness.²³ This phenomenon has led to higher rates of preventable malignancy in disabled patients and misattribution of common somatic symptoms to intellectual disability.^24,25 With this disparity in place as status quo for health care delivery to disabled populations, it is no surprise that certain portions of the disabled population have accounted for disproportionate mortality due to COVID-19.^26,27Disability advocates have called for “nothing about us without us,” a phrase associated with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Understanding the profound neurodiversity among several forms of sensory and cognitive disabilities, as well as the functional difference between cognitive disabilities, mobility impairment, and inability to meet one’s instrumental activities of daily living independently, others have proposed a unique approach to certain disabled populations in COVID care.²⁸ My own perspective is that definite progress may require a more general understanding of the prevalence of disability by clinicians, both via medical training and by directly addressing health equity for disabled populations in such calculations as the CSC. Systemic ableism is apparent in our most common clinical scoring systems, ranging from the GCS and Functional Assessment Staging Table to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and Karnofsky Performance Status scales. I have reexamined these scoring systems in my own understanding given their general equation of ambulation with ability or normalcy. As a doctor in a manual wheelchair who values greatly my personal quality of life and professional contribution to patient care, I worry that these scoring systems inherently discount my own equitable access to care. Individualization of patients’ particular abilities in the context of these scales must occur alongside evidence-based, guideline-directed management via these scoring systems.

Conclusion: Future Orientation

Updated CSC guidelines have accounted for the unique considerations of disabled patients by effectively caveating their scoring algorithms, directing clinicians via disclaimers to uniquely consider their disabled patients in clinical judgement. This is a first step, but it is also one that erodes the value of algorithms, which generally obviate more deliberative thinking and individualization. For our patients who lack certain abilities, as CSC continue to be activated in several states, we have an opportunity to pursue more inherently equitable solutions before further suffering accrues.²⁹ By way of example, adaptations to scoring systems that leverage QALYs for value-based drug pricing indices have been proposed by organizations like the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which proposed the Equal-Value-of Life-Years-Gained framework to inform QALY-based arbitration of drug pricing.³⁰ This is not a perfect rubric but instead represents an attempt to balance consideration of drugs, as has been done with ventilators during the pandemic, as a scare and expensive resource while addressing the just concerns of advocacy groups in structural ableism.

Resource stewardship during a crisis should not discount those states of human life that are perceived to be less desirable, particularly if they are not experienced as less desirable but are experienced uniquely. Instead, we should consider equitably measuring our intervention to match a patient’s needs, as we would dose-adjust a medication for renal function or consider minimally invasive procedures for multimorbid patients. COVID-19 has reflected our profession’s ethical adaptation during crisis as resources have become scarce; there is no better time to define solutions for health equity. We should now be concerned equally by the influence our personal biases have on our clinical practice and by the way in which these crisis standards will influence patients’ perception of and trust in their care providers during periods of perceived plentiful resources in the future. Health care resources are always limited, allocated according to societal values; if we value health equity for people of all abilities, then we will consider these abilities equitably as we pursue new standards for health care delivery.

Corresponding author: Gregory D. Snyder, MD, MBA, 2014 Washington Street, Newton, MA 02462; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.
 

Equitable Standards for All Patients in a Crisis

Health care delivered during a pandemic instantiates medicine’s perspectives on the value of human life in clinical scenarios where resource allocation is limited. The COVID-19 pandemic has fostered dialogue and debate around the ethical principles that underly such resource allocation, which generally balance (1) utilitarian optimization of resources, (2) equality or equity in health access, (3) the instrumental value of individuals as agents in society, and (4) prioritizing the “worst off” in their natural history of disease.^1,2 State legislatures and health systems have responded to the challeges posed by COVID-19 by considering both the scarcity of intensive care resources, such as mechanical ventilation and hemodialysis, and the clinical criteria to be used for determining which patients should receive said resources. These crisis guidelines have yielded several concerning themes vis-à-vis equitable distribution of health care resources, particularly when the disability status of patients is considered alongside life-expectancy or quality of life.³

Crisis standards of care (CSC) prioritize population-level health under a utilitarian paradigm, explicitly maximizing “life-years” within a population of patients rather than the life of any individual patient.⁴ Debated during initial COVID surges, these CSC guidelines have recently been enacted at the state level in several settings, including Alaska and Idaho.⁵ In a setting with scarce intensive care resources, balancing health equity in access to these resources against population-based survival metrics has been a challenge for commissions considering CSC.^6,7 This need for balance has further promoted systemic views of “disability,” raising concern for structural “ableism” and highlighting the need for greater “ability awareness” in clinicians’ continued professional learning.

Structural Ableism: Defining Perspectives to Address Health Equity

Ableism has been defined as “a system that places value on people’s bodies and minds, based on societally constructed ideas of normalcy, intelligence, excellence, and productivity…[and] leads to people and society determining who is valuable and worthy based on their appearance and/or their ability to satisfactorily [re]produce, excel, and ‘behave.’”⁸ Regarding CSC, concerns about systemic bias in guideline design were raised early by disability advocacy groups during comment periods.^9,10 More broadly, concerns about ableism sit alongside many deeply rooted societal perspectives of disabled individuals as pitiable or, conversely, heroic for having “overcome” their disability in some way. As a physician who sits in a manual wheelchair with paraplegia and mobility impairment, I have equally been subject to inappropriate bias and inappropriate praise for living in a wheelchair. I have also wondered, alongside my patients living with different levels of mobility or ability, why others often view us as “worse off.” Addressing directly whether disabled individuals are “worse off,” disability rights attorney and advocate Harriet McBryde Johnson has articulated a predominant sentiment among persons living with unique or different abilities:

Are we “worse off”? I don’t think so. Not in any meaningful way. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them. We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs.¹¹

Many physician colleagues have common, invisible diseases such as diabetes and heart disease; fewer colleagues share conditions that are as visible as my spinal cord injury, as readily apparent to patients upon my entry to their hospital rooms. This simultaneous and inescapable identity as both patient and provider has afforded me wonderful doctor-patient interactions, particularly with those patients who appreciate how my patient experience impacts my ability to partially understand theirs. However, this simultaneous identity as doctor and patient also informed my personal and professional concerns regarding structural ableism as I considered scoring my own acutely ill hospital medicine patients with CSC triage scores in April 2020.

As a practicing hospital medicine physician, I have been emboldened by the efforts of my fellow clinicians amid COVID-19; their efforts have reaffirmed all the reasons I pursued a career in medicine. However, when I heard my clinical colleagues’ first explanation of the Massachusetts CSC guidelines in April 2020, I raised my hand to ask whether the “life-years” to which the guidelines referred were quality-adjusted. My concern regarding the implicit use of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or disability-adjusted life years in clinical decision-making and implementation of these guidelines was validated when no clinical leaders could address this question directly. Sitting on the CSC committee for my hospital during this time was an honor. However, it was disconcerting to hear many clinicians’ unease when estimating mean survival for common chronic diseases, ranging from end-stage renal disease to advanced heart failure. If my expert colleagues, clinical specialists in kidney and heart disease, could not confidently apply mean survival estimates to multimorbid hospital patients, then idiosyncratic clinical judgment was sure to have a heavy hand in any calculation of “life-years.” Thus, my primary concern was that clinicians using triage heuristics would be subject to bias, regardless of their intention, and negatively adjust for the quality of a disabled life in their CSC triage scoring. My secondary concern was that the CSC guidelines themselves included systemic bias against disabled individuals.

According to CSC schema, triage scores index heavily on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores to define short-term survival; SOFA scores are partially driven by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Following professional and public comment periods, CSC guidelines in Massachusetts were revised to, among other critical points of revision, change prognostic estimation via “life years” in favor of generic estimation of short-term survival (Table). I wondered, if I presented to an emergency department with severe COVID-19 and was scored with the GCS for the purpose of making a CSC ventilator triage decision, how would my complete paraplegia and lower-extremity motor impairment be accounted for by a clinician assessing “best motor response” in the GCS? The purpose of these scores is to act algorithmically, to guide clinicians whose cognitive load and time limitations may not allow for adjustment of these algorithms based on the individual patient in front of them. Individualization of clinical decisions is part of medicine’s art, but is difficult in the best of times and no easier during a crisis in care delivery. As CSC triage scores were amended and addended throughout 2020, I returned to the COVID wards, time and again wondering, “What have we learned about systemic bias and health inequity in the CSC process and the pandemic broadly, with specific regard to disability?”

Ability Awareness: Room for Our Improvement

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that clinical judgment is impaired by structural ableism. In seminal work on this topic, Gerhart et al¹² demonstrated that clinicians considered spinal cord injury (SCI) survivors to have low self-perceptions of worthiness, overall negative attitudes, and low self-esteem as compared to able-bodied individuals. However, surveyed SCI survivors generally had similar self-perceptions of worth and positivity as compared to ”able-bodied” clinicians.¹² For providers who care for persons with disabilities, the majority (82.4%) have rated their disabled patients’ quality of life as worse.¹³ It is no wonder that patients with disabilities are more likely to feel that their doctor-patient relationship is impacted by lack of understanding, negative sentiment, or simple lack of listening.¹⁴ Generally, this poor doctor-patient relationship with disabled patients is exacerbated by poor exposure of medical trainees to disability education; only 34.2% of internal medicine residents recall any form of disability education in medical school, while only 52% of medical school deans report having disability educational content in their curricula.^15,16 There is a similar lack of disability representation in the population of medical trainees themselves. While approximately 20% of the American population lives with a disability, less than 2% of American medical students have a disability.^17-19

While representation of disabled populations in medical practice remains poor, disabled patients are generally less likely to receive age-appropriate prevention, appropriate access to care, and equal access to treatment.^20-22 “Diagnostic overshadowing” refers to clinicians’ attribution of nonspecific signs or symptoms to a patient’s chronic disability as opposed to acute illness.²³ This phenomenon has led to higher rates of preventable malignancy in disabled patients and misattribution of common somatic symptoms to intellectual disability.^24,25 With this disparity in place as status quo for health care delivery to disabled populations, it is no surprise that certain portions of the disabled population have accounted for disproportionate mortality due to COVID-19.^26,27Disability advocates have called for “nothing about us without us,” a phrase associated with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Understanding the profound neurodiversity among several forms of sensory and cognitive disabilities, as well as the functional difference between cognitive disabilities, mobility impairment, and inability to meet one’s instrumental activities of daily living independently, others have proposed a unique approach to certain disabled populations in COVID care.²⁸ My own perspective is that definite progress may require a more general understanding of the prevalence of disability by clinicians, both via medical training and by directly addressing health equity for disabled populations in such calculations as the CSC. Systemic ableism is apparent in our most common clinical scoring systems, ranging from the GCS and Functional Assessment Staging Table to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and Karnofsky Performance Status scales. I have reexamined these scoring systems in my own understanding given their general equation of ambulation with ability or normalcy. As a doctor in a manual wheelchair who values greatly my personal quality of life and professional contribution to patient care, I worry that these scoring systems inherently discount my own equitable access to care. Individualization of patients’ particular abilities in the context of these scales must occur alongside evidence-based, guideline-directed management via these scoring systems.

Conclusion: Future Orientation

Updated CSC guidelines have accounted for the unique considerations of disabled patients by effectively caveating their scoring algorithms, directing clinicians via disclaimers to uniquely consider their disabled patients in clinical judgement. This is a first step, but it is also one that erodes the value of algorithms, which generally obviate more deliberative thinking and individualization. For our patients who lack certain abilities, as CSC continue to be activated in several states, we have an opportunity to pursue more inherently equitable solutions before further suffering accrues.²⁹ By way of example, adaptations to scoring systems that leverage QALYs for value-based drug pricing indices have been proposed by organizations like the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which proposed the Equal-Value-of Life-Years-Gained framework to inform QALY-based arbitration of drug pricing.³⁰ This is not a perfect rubric but instead represents an attempt to balance consideration of drugs, as has been done with ventilators during the pandemic, as a scare and expensive resource while addressing the just concerns of advocacy groups in structural ableism.

Resource stewardship during a crisis should not discount those states of human life that are perceived to be less desirable, particularly if they are not experienced as less desirable but are experienced uniquely. Instead, we should consider equitably measuring our intervention to match a patient’s needs, as we would dose-adjust a medication for renal function or consider minimally invasive procedures for multimorbid patients. COVID-19 has reflected our profession’s ethical adaptation during crisis as resources have become scarce; there is no better time to define solutions for health equity. We should now be concerned equally by the influence our personal biases have on our clinical practice and by the way in which these crisis standards will influence patients’ perception of and trust in their care providers during periods of perceived plentiful resources in the future. Health care resources are always limited, allocated according to societal values; if we value health equity for people of all abilities, then we will consider these abilities equitably as we pursue new standards for health care delivery.

Corresponding author: Gregory D. Snyder, MD, MBA, 2014 Washington Street, Newton, MA 02462; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.
 

Equitable Standards for All Patients in a Crisis

Health care delivered during a pandemic instantiates medicine’s perspectives on the value of human life in clinical scenarios where resource allocation is limited. The COVID-19 pandemic has fostered dialogue and debate around the ethical principles that underly such resource allocation, which generally balance (1) utilitarian optimization of resources, (2) equality or equity in health access, (3) the instrumental value of individuals as agents in society, and (4) prioritizing the “worst off” in their natural history of disease.^1,2 State legislatures and health systems have responded to the challeges posed by COVID-19 by considering both the scarcity of intensive care resources, such as mechanical ventilation and hemodialysis, and the clinical criteria to be used for determining which patients should receive said resources. These crisis guidelines have yielded several concerning themes vis-à-vis equitable distribution of health care resources, particularly when the disability status of patients is considered alongside life-expectancy or quality of life.³

Crisis standards of care (CSC) prioritize population-level health under a utilitarian paradigm, explicitly maximizing “life-years” within a population of patients rather than the life of any individual patient.⁴ Debated during initial COVID surges, these CSC guidelines have recently been enacted at the state level in several settings, including Alaska and Idaho.⁵ In a setting with scarce intensive care resources, balancing health equity in access to these resources against population-based survival metrics has been a challenge for commissions considering CSC.^6,7 This need for balance has further promoted systemic views of “disability,” raising concern for structural “ableism” and highlighting the need for greater “ability awareness” in clinicians’ continued professional learning.

Structural Ableism: Defining Perspectives to Address Health Equity

Ableism has been defined as “a system that places value on people’s bodies and minds, based on societally constructed ideas of normalcy, intelligence, excellence, and productivity…[and] leads to people and society determining who is valuable and worthy based on their appearance and/or their ability to satisfactorily [re]produce, excel, and ‘behave.’”⁸ Regarding CSC, concerns about systemic bias in guideline design were raised early by disability advocacy groups during comment periods.^9,10 More broadly, concerns about ableism sit alongside many deeply rooted societal perspectives of disabled individuals as pitiable or, conversely, heroic for having “overcome” their disability in some way. As a physician who sits in a manual wheelchair with paraplegia and mobility impairment, I have equally been subject to inappropriate bias and inappropriate praise for living in a wheelchair. I have also wondered, alongside my patients living with different levels of mobility or ability, why others often view us as “worse off.” Addressing directly whether disabled individuals are “worse off,” disability rights attorney and advocate Harriet McBryde Johnson has articulated a predominant sentiment among persons living with unique or different abilities:

Are we “worse off”? I don’t think so. Not in any meaningful way. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them. We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs.¹¹

Many physician colleagues have common, invisible diseases such as diabetes and heart disease; fewer colleagues share conditions that are as visible as my spinal cord injury, as readily apparent to patients upon my entry to their hospital rooms. This simultaneous and inescapable identity as both patient and provider has afforded me wonderful doctor-patient interactions, particularly with those patients who appreciate how my patient experience impacts my ability to partially understand theirs. However, this simultaneous identity as doctor and patient also informed my personal and professional concerns regarding structural ableism as I considered scoring my own acutely ill hospital medicine patients with CSC triage scores in April 2020.

As a practicing hospital medicine physician, I have been emboldened by the efforts of my fellow clinicians amid COVID-19; their efforts have reaffirmed all the reasons I pursued a career in medicine. However, when I heard my clinical colleagues’ first explanation of the Massachusetts CSC guidelines in April 2020, I raised my hand to ask whether the “life-years” to which the guidelines referred were quality-adjusted. My concern regarding the implicit use of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or disability-adjusted life years in clinical decision-making and implementation of these guidelines was validated when no clinical leaders could address this question directly. Sitting on the CSC committee for my hospital during this time was an honor. However, it was disconcerting to hear many clinicians’ unease when estimating mean survival for common chronic diseases, ranging from end-stage renal disease to advanced heart failure. If my expert colleagues, clinical specialists in kidney and heart disease, could not confidently apply mean survival estimates to multimorbid hospital patients, then idiosyncratic clinical judgment was sure to have a heavy hand in any calculation of “life-years.” Thus, my primary concern was that clinicians using triage heuristics would be subject to bias, regardless of their intention, and negatively adjust for the quality of a disabled life in their CSC triage scoring. My secondary concern was that the CSC guidelines themselves included systemic bias against disabled individuals.

According to CSC schema, triage scores index heavily on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores to define short-term survival; SOFA scores are partially driven by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Following professional and public comment periods, CSC guidelines in Massachusetts were revised to, among other critical points of revision, change prognostic estimation via “life years” in favor of generic estimation of short-term survival (Table). I wondered, if I presented to an emergency department with severe COVID-19 and was scored with the GCS for the purpose of making a CSC ventilator triage decision, how would my complete paraplegia and lower-extremity motor impairment be accounted for by a clinician assessing “best motor response” in the GCS? The purpose of these scores is to act algorithmically, to guide clinicians whose cognitive load and time limitations may not allow for adjustment of these algorithms based on the individual patient in front of them. Individualization of clinical decisions is part of medicine’s art, but is difficult in the best of times and no easier during a crisis in care delivery. As CSC triage scores were amended and addended throughout 2020, I returned to the COVID wards, time and again wondering, “What have we learned about systemic bias and health inequity in the CSC process and the pandemic broadly, with specific regard to disability?”

Ability Awareness: Room for Our Improvement

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that clinical judgment is impaired by structural ableism. In seminal work on this topic, Gerhart et al¹² demonstrated that clinicians considered spinal cord injury (SCI) survivors to have low self-perceptions of worthiness, overall negative attitudes, and low self-esteem as compared to able-bodied individuals. However, surveyed SCI survivors generally had similar self-perceptions of worth and positivity as compared to ”able-bodied” clinicians.¹² For providers who care for persons with disabilities, the majority (82.4%) have rated their disabled patients’ quality of life as worse.¹³ It is no wonder that patients with disabilities are more likely to feel that their doctor-patient relationship is impacted by lack of understanding, negative sentiment, or simple lack of listening.¹⁴ Generally, this poor doctor-patient relationship with disabled patients is exacerbated by poor exposure of medical trainees to disability education; only 34.2% of internal medicine residents recall any form of disability education in medical school, while only 52% of medical school deans report having disability educational content in their curricula.^15,16 There is a similar lack of disability representation in the population of medical trainees themselves. While approximately 20% of the American population lives with a disability, less than 2% of American medical students have a disability.^17-19

While representation of disabled populations in medical practice remains poor, disabled patients are generally less likely to receive age-appropriate prevention, appropriate access to care, and equal access to treatment.^20-22 “Diagnostic overshadowing” refers to clinicians’ attribution of nonspecific signs or symptoms to a patient’s chronic disability as opposed to acute illness.²³ This phenomenon has led to higher rates of preventable malignancy in disabled patients and misattribution of common somatic symptoms to intellectual disability.^24,25 With this disparity in place as status quo for health care delivery to disabled populations, it is no surprise that certain portions of the disabled population have accounted for disproportionate mortality due to COVID-19.^26,27Disability advocates have called for “nothing about us without us,” a phrase associated with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Understanding the profound neurodiversity among several forms of sensory and cognitive disabilities, as well as the functional difference between cognitive disabilities, mobility impairment, and inability to meet one’s instrumental activities of daily living independently, others have proposed a unique approach to certain disabled populations in COVID care.²⁸ My own perspective is that definite progress may require a more general understanding of the prevalence of disability by clinicians, both via medical training and by directly addressing health equity for disabled populations in such calculations as the CSC. Systemic ableism is apparent in our most common clinical scoring systems, ranging from the GCS and Functional Assessment Staging Table to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and Karnofsky Performance Status scales. I have reexamined these scoring systems in my own understanding given their general equation of ambulation with ability or normalcy. As a doctor in a manual wheelchair who values greatly my personal quality of life and professional contribution to patient care, I worry that these scoring systems inherently discount my own equitable access to care. Individualization of patients’ particular abilities in the context of these scales must occur alongside evidence-based, guideline-directed management via these scoring systems.

Conclusion: Future Orientation

Updated CSC guidelines have accounted for the unique considerations of disabled patients by effectively caveating their scoring algorithms, directing clinicians via disclaimers to uniquely consider their disabled patients in clinical judgement. This is a first step, but it is also one that erodes the value of algorithms, which generally obviate more deliberative thinking and individualization. For our patients who lack certain abilities, as CSC continue to be activated in several states, we have an opportunity to pursue more inherently equitable solutions before further suffering accrues.²⁹ By way of example, adaptations to scoring systems that leverage QALYs for value-based drug pricing indices have been proposed by organizations like the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which proposed the Equal-Value-of Life-Years-Gained framework to inform QALY-based arbitration of drug pricing.³⁰ This is not a perfect rubric but instead represents an attempt to balance consideration of drugs, as has been done with ventilators during the pandemic, as a scare and expensive resource while addressing the just concerns of advocacy groups in structural ableism.

Resource stewardship during a crisis should not discount those states of human life that are perceived to be less desirable, particularly if they are not experienced as less desirable but are experienced uniquely. Instead, we should consider equitably measuring our intervention to match a patient’s needs, as we would dose-adjust a medication for renal function or consider minimally invasive procedures for multimorbid patients. COVID-19 has reflected our profession’s ethical adaptation during crisis as resources have become scarce; there is no better time to define solutions for health equity. We should now be concerned equally by the influence our personal biases have on our clinical practice and by the way in which these crisis standards will influence patients’ perception of and trust in their care providers during periods of perceived plentiful resources in the future. Health care resources are always limited, allocated according to societal values; if we value health equity for people of all abilities, then we will consider these abilities equitably as we pursue new standards for health care delivery.

Corresponding author: Gregory D. Snyder, MD, MBA, 2014 Washington Street, Newton, MA 02462; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.