User login
In Case You Missed It: COVID
SARS-CoV-2 appears unlikely to pass through breast milk
Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.
“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.
One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.
The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.
“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.
The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.
“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.
“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”
However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”
Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.
SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.
Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.
“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.
One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.
The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.
“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.
The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.
“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.
“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”
However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”
Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.
SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.
Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.
“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.
One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.
The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.
“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.
The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.
“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.
“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”
However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”
Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.
SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.
FROM JAMA
Hospitalists balance work, family as pandemic boosts stress
In a Q&A session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, discussed strategies to help hospitalists tend to their personal wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The speakers described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during the pandemic, while balancing home responsibilities and parenting. The session was an opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family.
Dr. Nye said she was still “warming up to personal wellness” because there have been so many other demands over the past several months, but that taking the time to go for walks – to bring on a feeling of health even more than the physical benefits – has been helpful. Even before the pandemic, she said, she brought a guitar to the office to take a few minutes for a hobby for which she can’t seem to find uninterrupted time at home.
“Bringing a little bit of yourself into your work life goes a long way for a lot of people,” she said.
Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, the presenters said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.
Dr. Alfandre said etching out time for yourself must be “a priority, or it won’t happen.” Doing so, he said, “feels indulgent but it’s not. It’s central to being able to do the kind of work you do when you’re at the hospital, at the office, and when you’re back home again.”
Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.
Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.
Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other. He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.
“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.
When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.
“I feel like sharing that part of our job [with] our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”
Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.
In a Q&A session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, discussed strategies to help hospitalists tend to their personal wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The speakers described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during the pandemic, while balancing home responsibilities and parenting. The session was an opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family.
Dr. Nye said she was still “warming up to personal wellness” because there have been so many other demands over the past several months, but that taking the time to go for walks – to bring on a feeling of health even more than the physical benefits – has been helpful. Even before the pandemic, she said, she brought a guitar to the office to take a few minutes for a hobby for which she can’t seem to find uninterrupted time at home.
“Bringing a little bit of yourself into your work life goes a long way for a lot of people,” she said.
Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, the presenters said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.
Dr. Alfandre said etching out time for yourself must be “a priority, or it won’t happen.” Doing so, he said, “feels indulgent but it’s not. It’s central to being able to do the kind of work you do when you’re at the hospital, at the office, and when you’re back home again.”
Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.
Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.
Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other. He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.
“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.
When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.
“I feel like sharing that part of our job [with] our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”
Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.
In a Q&A session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, discussed strategies to help hospitalists tend to their personal wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The speakers described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during the pandemic, while balancing home responsibilities and parenting. The session was an opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family.
Dr. Nye said she was still “warming up to personal wellness” because there have been so many other demands over the past several months, but that taking the time to go for walks – to bring on a feeling of health even more than the physical benefits – has been helpful. Even before the pandemic, she said, she brought a guitar to the office to take a few minutes for a hobby for which she can’t seem to find uninterrupted time at home.
“Bringing a little bit of yourself into your work life goes a long way for a lot of people,” she said.
Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, the presenters said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.
Dr. Alfandre said etching out time for yourself must be “a priority, or it won’t happen.” Doing so, he said, “feels indulgent but it’s not. It’s central to being able to do the kind of work you do when you’re at the hospital, at the office, and when you’re back home again.”
Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.
Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.
Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other. He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.
“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.
When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.
“I feel like sharing that part of our job [with] our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”
Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM HM20 VIRTUAL
Vitamin D pearls
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
Mitigating psychiatric disorder relapse in pregnancy during pandemic
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
FDA approves point-of-care COVID-19 antigen test
The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.
A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.
Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.
Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.
“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”
“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.
The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.
The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.
Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.
Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.
A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.
Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.
Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.
“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”
“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.
The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.
The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.
Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.
Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.
A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.
Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.
Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.
“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”
“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.
The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.
The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.
Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.
Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 vaccine supply will be limited at first, ACIP says
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.
Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.
Vaccine allocation models
The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.
The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.
In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.
The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.
In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.
The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.
Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.
The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.
The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.
A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.
‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage
Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.
This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.
High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.
The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.
Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.
Vaccine allocation models
The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.
The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.
In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.
The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.
In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.
The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.
Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.
The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.
The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.
A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.
‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage
Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.
This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.
High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.
The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.
Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.
Vaccine allocation models
The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.
The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.
In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.
The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.
In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.
The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.
Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.
The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.
The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.
A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.
‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage
Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.
This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.
High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.
The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in kids tied to local rates
As communities wrestle with the decision to send children back to school or opt for distance learning, a key question is how many children are likely to have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.
“The strong association between prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children who are asymptomatic and contemporaneous weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population ... provides a simple means for institutions to estimate local pediatric asymptomatic prevalence from the publicly available Johns Hopkins University database,” researchers say in an article published online August 25 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Ana Marija Sola, BS, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues examined the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among 33,041 children who underwent routine testing in April and May when hospitals resumed elective medical and surgical care. The hospitals performed reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2 RNA before surgery, clinic visits, or hospital admissions. Pediatric otolaryngologists reported the prevalence data through May 29 as part of a quality improvement project.
In all, 250 patients tested positive for the virus, for an overall prevalence of 0.65%. Across 25 geographic areas, the prevalence ranged from 0% to 2.2%. By region, prevalence was highest in the Northeast, at 0.90%, and the Midwest, at 0.87%; prevalence was lower in the West, at 0.59%, and the South, at 0.52%.
To get a sense of how those rates compared with overall rates in the same geographic areas, the researchers used the Johns Hopkins University confirmed cases database to calculate the average weekly incidence of COVID-19 for the entire population for each geographic area.
“Asymptomatic pediatric prevalence was significantly associated with weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population during the 6-week period over which most testing of individuals without symptoms occurred,” Ms. Sola and colleagues reported. An analysis using additional data from 11 geographic areas demonstrated that this association persisted at a later time point.
The study provides “another window on the question of how likely is it that an asymptomatic child will be carrying coronavirus,” said Susan E. Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician for the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. However, important related questions remain, said Dr. Coffin, who was not involved with the study.
For one, it is unclear how many children remain asymptomatic in comparison with those who were in a presymptomatic phase at the time of testing. And importantly, “what proportion of these children are infectious?” said Dr. Coffin. “There is some data to suggest that children with asymptomatic infection may be less infectious than children with symptomatic infection.”
It also could be that patients seen at children’s hospitals differ from the general pediatric population. “What does this look like if you do the exact same study in a group of randomly selected children, not children who are queueing up to have a procedure? ... And what do these numbers look like now that stay-at-home orders have been lifted?” Dr. Coffin asked.
Further studies are needed to establish that detection of COVID-19 in the general population is predictive of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic children, Dr. Coffin said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As communities wrestle with the decision to send children back to school or opt for distance learning, a key question is how many children are likely to have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.
“The strong association between prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children who are asymptomatic and contemporaneous weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population ... provides a simple means for institutions to estimate local pediatric asymptomatic prevalence from the publicly available Johns Hopkins University database,” researchers say in an article published online August 25 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Ana Marija Sola, BS, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues examined the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among 33,041 children who underwent routine testing in April and May when hospitals resumed elective medical and surgical care. The hospitals performed reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2 RNA before surgery, clinic visits, or hospital admissions. Pediatric otolaryngologists reported the prevalence data through May 29 as part of a quality improvement project.
In all, 250 patients tested positive for the virus, for an overall prevalence of 0.65%. Across 25 geographic areas, the prevalence ranged from 0% to 2.2%. By region, prevalence was highest in the Northeast, at 0.90%, and the Midwest, at 0.87%; prevalence was lower in the West, at 0.59%, and the South, at 0.52%.
To get a sense of how those rates compared with overall rates in the same geographic areas, the researchers used the Johns Hopkins University confirmed cases database to calculate the average weekly incidence of COVID-19 for the entire population for each geographic area.
“Asymptomatic pediatric prevalence was significantly associated with weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population during the 6-week period over which most testing of individuals without symptoms occurred,” Ms. Sola and colleagues reported. An analysis using additional data from 11 geographic areas demonstrated that this association persisted at a later time point.
The study provides “another window on the question of how likely is it that an asymptomatic child will be carrying coronavirus,” said Susan E. Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician for the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. However, important related questions remain, said Dr. Coffin, who was not involved with the study.
For one, it is unclear how many children remain asymptomatic in comparison with those who were in a presymptomatic phase at the time of testing. And importantly, “what proportion of these children are infectious?” said Dr. Coffin. “There is some data to suggest that children with asymptomatic infection may be less infectious than children with symptomatic infection.”
It also could be that patients seen at children’s hospitals differ from the general pediatric population. “What does this look like if you do the exact same study in a group of randomly selected children, not children who are queueing up to have a procedure? ... And what do these numbers look like now that stay-at-home orders have been lifted?” Dr. Coffin asked.
Further studies are needed to establish that detection of COVID-19 in the general population is predictive of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic children, Dr. Coffin said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As communities wrestle with the decision to send children back to school or opt for distance learning, a key question is how many children are likely to have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.
“The strong association between prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children who are asymptomatic and contemporaneous weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population ... provides a simple means for institutions to estimate local pediatric asymptomatic prevalence from the publicly available Johns Hopkins University database,” researchers say in an article published online August 25 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Ana Marija Sola, BS, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues examined the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among 33,041 children who underwent routine testing in April and May when hospitals resumed elective medical and surgical care. The hospitals performed reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2 RNA before surgery, clinic visits, or hospital admissions. Pediatric otolaryngologists reported the prevalence data through May 29 as part of a quality improvement project.
In all, 250 patients tested positive for the virus, for an overall prevalence of 0.65%. Across 25 geographic areas, the prevalence ranged from 0% to 2.2%. By region, prevalence was highest in the Northeast, at 0.90%, and the Midwest, at 0.87%; prevalence was lower in the West, at 0.59%, and the South, at 0.52%.
To get a sense of how those rates compared with overall rates in the same geographic areas, the researchers used the Johns Hopkins University confirmed cases database to calculate the average weekly incidence of COVID-19 for the entire population for each geographic area.
“Asymptomatic pediatric prevalence was significantly associated with weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population during the 6-week period over which most testing of individuals without symptoms occurred,” Ms. Sola and colleagues reported. An analysis using additional data from 11 geographic areas demonstrated that this association persisted at a later time point.
The study provides “another window on the question of how likely is it that an asymptomatic child will be carrying coronavirus,” said Susan E. Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician for the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. However, important related questions remain, said Dr. Coffin, who was not involved with the study.
For one, it is unclear how many children remain asymptomatic in comparison with those who were in a presymptomatic phase at the time of testing. And importantly, “what proportion of these children are infectious?” said Dr. Coffin. “There is some data to suggest that children with asymptomatic infection may be less infectious than children with symptomatic infection.”
It also could be that patients seen at children’s hospitals differ from the general pediatric population. “What does this look like if you do the exact same study in a group of randomly selected children, not children who are queueing up to have a procedure? ... And what do these numbers look like now that stay-at-home orders have been lifted?” Dr. Coffin asked.
Further studies are needed to establish that detection of COVID-19 in the general population is predictive of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic children, Dr. Coffin said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19: ‘Record’ spike in Internet anxiety, panic queries
Internet searches regarding acute anxiety reached an all-time high between March and May 2020, new research shows.
Investigators used data collected by Google to monitor the daily percentage of all Internet searches originating in the United States that included the terms “anxiety” or “panic” in combination with “attack” between January 2004 and May 2020.
They found an 11% increase in all acute anxiety queries between March 2020, when President Donald Trump first declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, and May 2020. This translates into approximately 375,000 more searches than expected.
Most of the increase in inquiries occurred when specific developments in COVID-19 were reported.
“We found record levels of people potentially having panic attacks, as reflected by their online queries since early in the pandemic,” lead author John W. Ayers, PhD, associate adjunct professor of medicine, school of health sciences, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“There are two main take-home messages from our research – one is that we need to think about how to address acute anxiety during COVID-19, and the other is that who is also vice chief of innovation, division of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California, San Diego.
The study was published online August 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Real-time data
“There has been a lot of speculation about collateral consequences of COVID-19, especially in mental health,” Dr. Ayers said.
Most of the research has been conducted via self-report survey, but these types of surveys may miss individuals who do not participate in the surveys or do not seek care, Dr. Ayers added.
“We need a strategy that can measure behavioral health in real time so we can design interventions to meet these needs,” he said.
He explained that he and his colleagues “looked at one case study – panic attacks – because it is the most prevalent form of mental health problem driven by your surroundings, and it is socially contagious, meaning that when someone you know is having a severe acute anxiety or panic attack, you’re more likely to have one yourself.”
The researchers turned to publicly available nonidentifiable data collected via Google Trends – a feature of Google that shows how frequently a given search term is entered into Google’s search engine, relative to the site’s total search volume, over a specific period.
They monitored all searches containing their keywords over a 15-year period (Jan. 1, 2004–May 4, 2020). Search volumes between March 13, 2020 (when the national emergency was declared) and the last date of available data (May 9, 2020) were compared with the expected search volumes that would have been found had COVID-19 not occurred.
Headline-related spikes
Cumulatively, all acute anxiety searches were 11% higher than expected for the 58-day study period (95% confidence interval, 7%-14%). There was a dramatic increase in searches (375,000), or a total of 3.4 million searches, during that period.
Most of these searches took place between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2020, when searches were cumulatively 17% higher than expected (95% CI, 13%-22%).
Several COVID-19–related milestones took place during that period.
- First imposition of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 16, 2020).
- The United States surpassed China with the most reported COVID-19 cases (March 26, 2020).
- Extension of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 29, 2020).
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended use of face masks (April 3, 2020).
- The United States surpassed Italy for having the most COVID-19–related deaths (April 11, 2020).
The largest spike in acute anxiety queries occurred on March 28, 2020, on which date there were 52% more searches than expected. Queries returned to expected levels on April 15, 2020, and have fallen within expected ranges since then.
Dr. Ayers noted that, although other stressors have affected people in the United States, including electoral and economic issues, “the headlines around COVID-19 were driving the anxiety, and those days with dramatic headlines were associated with large spikes in queries.”
“Our messaging surrounding how COVID-19 is reported may need to change to prevent this,” Dr. Ayers said. “Headlines that hit people in the head by reporting how many people died and bury in the article how we can slow the spread may increase anxiety more than headlines reporting strategies that work right up front.”
He noted that media reporting of suicide has begun to change; there have been fewer sensationalized headlines, and there has been an increase in referrals to suicide hotlines. “We need to be thinking about similar strategies when reporting COVID-19,” said Dr. Ayers.
He also suggested tapping existing resources, such as state suicide hotlines, by training staff to assist persons experiencing acute anxiety and panic attacks.
As an example of this model, the authors point to an Illinois-based hotline, Call4Calm, which helps people cope with acute COVID-19 anxiety.
Google queries concerning panic and anxiety do not yield any links to helplines, although OneBox, a Google feature, provides information to people inquiring about suicide and addiction. “This approach could be used to promote resources about anxiety and panic and COVID-19,” Dr. Ayers suggested.
Call to action
Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, said the study’s recommendations were “interesting and worth amplifying “ and that “headlines calling for calm” were “a good suggestion.” She was not involved with the study.
“A multifaceted, multimedia approach is needed – not only what’s on Google, but it would be helpful if politicians could acknowledge the anxiety and make available more mental health resources,” she added.
Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington, suggested that it is a “simple option [during patient visits] to incorporate a question as to how your patient is being affected by the pandemic into your standard template, together with questions about sleep, appetite, sexual functioning, etc.”
Dr. Ayers said that the “call to action” that he and his colleagues are making is to use their methodology to “know what mental health needs are in the population” and to use existing frameworks and strategies to address them.
The study was supported by a grant from the University of California office of the president and by intramural support from the division of infectious diseases and the Center for Data Driven Health at the Qualcomm Institute, both with the University of California, San Diego. One coauthor was funded by Bill and Melinda Gates through the Global Good Fund. Dr. Ayers owns equity positions in Directing Medicine, Health Watcher, and Good Analytics, companies that advise on the use of digital data for public health surveillance. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Internet searches regarding acute anxiety reached an all-time high between March and May 2020, new research shows.
Investigators used data collected by Google to monitor the daily percentage of all Internet searches originating in the United States that included the terms “anxiety” or “panic” in combination with “attack” between January 2004 and May 2020.
They found an 11% increase in all acute anxiety queries between March 2020, when President Donald Trump first declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, and May 2020. This translates into approximately 375,000 more searches than expected.
Most of the increase in inquiries occurred when specific developments in COVID-19 were reported.
“We found record levels of people potentially having panic attacks, as reflected by their online queries since early in the pandemic,” lead author John W. Ayers, PhD, associate adjunct professor of medicine, school of health sciences, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“There are two main take-home messages from our research – one is that we need to think about how to address acute anxiety during COVID-19, and the other is that who is also vice chief of innovation, division of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California, San Diego.
The study was published online August 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Real-time data
“There has been a lot of speculation about collateral consequences of COVID-19, especially in mental health,” Dr. Ayers said.
Most of the research has been conducted via self-report survey, but these types of surveys may miss individuals who do not participate in the surveys or do not seek care, Dr. Ayers added.
“We need a strategy that can measure behavioral health in real time so we can design interventions to meet these needs,” he said.
He explained that he and his colleagues “looked at one case study – panic attacks – because it is the most prevalent form of mental health problem driven by your surroundings, and it is socially contagious, meaning that when someone you know is having a severe acute anxiety or panic attack, you’re more likely to have one yourself.”
The researchers turned to publicly available nonidentifiable data collected via Google Trends – a feature of Google that shows how frequently a given search term is entered into Google’s search engine, relative to the site’s total search volume, over a specific period.
They monitored all searches containing their keywords over a 15-year period (Jan. 1, 2004–May 4, 2020). Search volumes between March 13, 2020 (when the national emergency was declared) and the last date of available data (May 9, 2020) were compared with the expected search volumes that would have been found had COVID-19 not occurred.
Headline-related spikes
Cumulatively, all acute anxiety searches were 11% higher than expected for the 58-day study period (95% confidence interval, 7%-14%). There was a dramatic increase in searches (375,000), or a total of 3.4 million searches, during that period.
Most of these searches took place between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2020, when searches were cumulatively 17% higher than expected (95% CI, 13%-22%).
Several COVID-19–related milestones took place during that period.
- First imposition of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 16, 2020).
- The United States surpassed China with the most reported COVID-19 cases (March 26, 2020).
- Extension of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 29, 2020).
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended use of face masks (April 3, 2020).
- The United States surpassed Italy for having the most COVID-19–related deaths (April 11, 2020).
The largest spike in acute anxiety queries occurred on March 28, 2020, on which date there were 52% more searches than expected. Queries returned to expected levels on April 15, 2020, and have fallen within expected ranges since then.
Dr. Ayers noted that, although other stressors have affected people in the United States, including electoral and economic issues, “the headlines around COVID-19 were driving the anxiety, and those days with dramatic headlines were associated with large spikes in queries.”
“Our messaging surrounding how COVID-19 is reported may need to change to prevent this,” Dr. Ayers said. “Headlines that hit people in the head by reporting how many people died and bury in the article how we can slow the spread may increase anxiety more than headlines reporting strategies that work right up front.”
He noted that media reporting of suicide has begun to change; there have been fewer sensationalized headlines, and there has been an increase in referrals to suicide hotlines. “We need to be thinking about similar strategies when reporting COVID-19,” said Dr. Ayers.
He also suggested tapping existing resources, such as state suicide hotlines, by training staff to assist persons experiencing acute anxiety and panic attacks.
As an example of this model, the authors point to an Illinois-based hotline, Call4Calm, which helps people cope with acute COVID-19 anxiety.
Google queries concerning panic and anxiety do not yield any links to helplines, although OneBox, a Google feature, provides information to people inquiring about suicide and addiction. “This approach could be used to promote resources about anxiety and panic and COVID-19,” Dr. Ayers suggested.
Call to action
Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, said the study’s recommendations were “interesting and worth amplifying “ and that “headlines calling for calm” were “a good suggestion.” She was not involved with the study.
“A multifaceted, multimedia approach is needed – not only what’s on Google, but it would be helpful if politicians could acknowledge the anxiety and make available more mental health resources,” she added.
Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington, suggested that it is a “simple option [during patient visits] to incorporate a question as to how your patient is being affected by the pandemic into your standard template, together with questions about sleep, appetite, sexual functioning, etc.”
Dr. Ayers said that the “call to action” that he and his colleagues are making is to use their methodology to “know what mental health needs are in the population” and to use existing frameworks and strategies to address them.
The study was supported by a grant from the University of California office of the president and by intramural support from the division of infectious diseases and the Center for Data Driven Health at the Qualcomm Institute, both with the University of California, San Diego. One coauthor was funded by Bill and Melinda Gates through the Global Good Fund. Dr. Ayers owns equity positions in Directing Medicine, Health Watcher, and Good Analytics, companies that advise on the use of digital data for public health surveillance. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Internet searches regarding acute anxiety reached an all-time high between March and May 2020, new research shows.
Investigators used data collected by Google to monitor the daily percentage of all Internet searches originating in the United States that included the terms “anxiety” or “panic” in combination with “attack” between January 2004 and May 2020.
They found an 11% increase in all acute anxiety queries between March 2020, when President Donald Trump first declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, and May 2020. This translates into approximately 375,000 more searches than expected.
Most of the increase in inquiries occurred when specific developments in COVID-19 were reported.
“We found record levels of people potentially having panic attacks, as reflected by their online queries since early in the pandemic,” lead author John W. Ayers, PhD, associate adjunct professor of medicine, school of health sciences, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“There are two main take-home messages from our research – one is that we need to think about how to address acute anxiety during COVID-19, and the other is that who is also vice chief of innovation, division of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California, San Diego.
The study was published online August 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Real-time data
“There has been a lot of speculation about collateral consequences of COVID-19, especially in mental health,” Dr. Ayers said.
Most of the research has been conducted via self-report survey, but these types of surveys may miss individuals who do not participate in the surveys or do not seek care, Dr. Ayers added.
“We need a strategy that can measure behavioral health in real time so we can design interventions to meet these needs,” he said.
He explained that he and his colleagues “looked at one case study – panic attacks – because it is the most prevalent form of mental health problem driven by your surroundings, and it is socially contagious, meaning that when someone you know is having a severe acute anxiety or panic attack, you’re more likely to have one yourself.”
The researchers turned to publicly available nonidentifiable data collected via Google Trends – a feature of Google that shows how frequently a given search term is entered into Google’s search engine, relative to the site’s total search volume, over a specific period.
They monitored all searches containing their keywords over a 15-year period (Jan. 1, 2004–May 4, 2020). Search volumes between March 13, 2020 (when the national emergency was declared) and the last date of available data (May 9, 2020) were compared with the expected search volumes that would have been found had COVID-19 not occurred.
Headline-related spikes
Cumulatively, all acute anxiety searches were 11% higher than expected for the 58-day study period (95% confidence interval, 7%-14%). There was a dramatic increase in searches (375,000), or a total of 3.4 million searches, during that period.
Most of these searches took place between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2020, when searches were cumulatively 17% higher than expected (95% CI, 13%-22%).
Several COVID-19–related milestones took place during that period.
- First imposition of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 16, 2020).
- The United States surpassed China with the most reported COVID-19 cases (March 26, 2020).
- Extension of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 29, 2020).
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended use of face masks (April 3, 2020).
- The United States surpassed Italy for having the most COVID-19–related deaths (April 11, 2020).
The largest spike in acute anxiety queries occurred on March 28, 2020, on which date there were 52% more searches than expected. Queries returned to expected levels on April 15, 2020, and have fallen within expected ranges since then.
Dr. Ayers noted that, although other stressors have affected people in the United States, including electoral and economic issues, “the headlines around COVID-19 were driving the anxiety, and those days with dramatic headlines were associated with large spikes in queries.”
“Our messaging surrounding how COVID-19 is reported may need to change to prevent this,” Dr. Ayers said. “Headlines that hit people in the head by reporting how many people died and bury in the article how we can slow the spread may increase anxiety more than headlines reporting strategies that work right up front.”
He noted that media reporting of suicide has begun to change; there have been fewer sensationalized headlines, and there has been an increase in referrals to suicide hotlines. “We need to be thinking about similar strategies when reporting COVID-19,” said Dr. Ayers.
He also suggested tapping existing resources, such as state suicide hotlines, by training staff to assist persons experiencing acute anxiety and panic attacks.
As an example of this model, the authors point to an Illinois-based hotline, Call4Calm, which helps people cope with acute COVID-19 anxiety.
Google queries concerning panic and anxiety do not yield any links to helplines, although OneBox, a Google feature, provides information to people inquiring about suicide and addiction. “This approach could be used to promote resources about anxiety and panic and COVID-19,” Dr. Ayers suggested.
Call to action
Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, said the study’s recommendations were “interesting and worth amplifying “ and that “headlines calling for calm” were “a good suggestion.” She was not involved with the study.
“A multifaceted, multimedia approach is needed – not only what’s on Google, but it would be helpful if politicians could acknowledge the anxiety and make available more mental health resources,” she added.
Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington, suggested that it is a “simple option [during patient visits] to incorporate a question as to how your patient is being affected by the pandemic into your standard template, together with questions about sleep, appetite, sexual functioning, etc.”
Dr. Ayers said that the “call to action” that he and his colleagues are making is to use their methodology to “know what mental health needs are in the population” and to use existing frameworks and strategies to address them.
The study was supported by a grant from the University of California office of the president and by intramural support from the division of infectious diseases and the Center for Data Driven Health at the Qualcomm Institute, both with the University of California, San Diego. One coauthor was funded by Bill and Melinda Gates through the Global Good Fund. Dr. Ayers owns equity positions in Directing Medicine, Health Watcher, and Good Analytics, companies that advise on the use of digital data for public health surveillance. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Convalescent plasma actions spark trial recruitment concerns
The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.
In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.
At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.
“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”
About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”
But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.
“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”
Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.
When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.
The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
Hopeful, but a long way to go
Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.
“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.
Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.
Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.
Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”
But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”
Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.
Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.
The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.
Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.
In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.
At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.
“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”
About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”
But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.
“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”
Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.
When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.
The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
Hopeful, but a long way to go
Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.
“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.
Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.
Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.
Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”
But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”
Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.
Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.
The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.
Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.
In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.
At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.
“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”
About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”
But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.
“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”
Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.
When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.
The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
Hopeful, but a long way to go
Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.
“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.
Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.
Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.
Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”
But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”
Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.
Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.
The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.
Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prognosis for rural hospitals worsens with pandemic
Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.
After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.
“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”
Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.
It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”
One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.
Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.
Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.
The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.
Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.
“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.
Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.
“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.
Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.
Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.
For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.
“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.
There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.
“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”
Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.
In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.
Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.
“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”
Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.
“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.
After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.
“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”
Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.
It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”
One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.
Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.
Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.
The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.
Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.
“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.
Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.
“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.
Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.
Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.
For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.
“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.
There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.
“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”
Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.
In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.
Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.
“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”
Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.
“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.
After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.
“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”
Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.
It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”
One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.
Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.
Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.
The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.
Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.
“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.
Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.
“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.
Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.
Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.
For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.
“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.
There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.
“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”
Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.
In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.
Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.
“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”
Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.
“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.