MDedge Neurology

An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.

However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.

“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.

Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).

The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.

“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.

For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.

A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.

Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?

The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.

“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.

“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.

In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.

Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.

Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.

“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.

“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.

Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
 

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

An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.

However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.

“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.

Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).

The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.

“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.

For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.

A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.

Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?

The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.

“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.

“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.

In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.

Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.

Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.

“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.

“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.

Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
 

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

An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.

However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.

“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.

Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).

The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.

“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.

For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.

A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.

Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?

The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.

“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.

“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.

In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.

Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.

Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.

“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.

“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.

Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
 

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.

A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.

Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.

“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.

“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”

Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.

“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”

“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.

“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”

“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020

Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.

In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.

They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.

There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.

The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).

Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).

The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).

In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).

This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.

These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.

Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.

Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.

For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”

“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.

“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.

In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020

The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.

“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”

To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.

They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).

Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.

There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).

“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”

“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.

Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”

Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.

A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.

Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.

“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.

“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”

Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.

“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”

“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.

“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”

“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020

Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.

In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.

They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.

There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.

The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).

Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).

The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).

In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).

This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.

These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.

Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.

Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.

For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”

“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.

“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.

In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020

The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.

“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”

To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.

They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).

Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.

There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).

“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”

“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.

Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”

Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.

A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.

Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.

“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.

“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”

Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.

“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”

“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.

“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”

“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020

Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.

In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.

They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.

There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.

The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).

Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).

The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).

In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).

This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.

These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.

Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.

Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.

For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”

“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.

“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.

In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020

The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.

“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”

To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.

They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).

Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.

There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).

“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”

“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.

Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”

Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Over 818,000 plans were selected for the 2021 coverage year during the first week, Nov.1-7, of this year’s open enrollment on the federal health insurance exchange, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The bulk of those plans, nearly 79%, were renewals by consumers who had coverage through the federal exchange this year. The balance covers new plans selected by individuals who were not covered through HealthCare.gov this year, the CMS noted in a written statement.

The total enrollment for week 1 marks a considerable increase over last year’s first week of open enrollment, which saw approximately 177,000 plans selected, but Nov. 1 fell on a Friday in 2019, so that total represents only 2 days since weeks are tracked as running from Sunday to Saturday, the CMS explained.

For the 2021 benefit year, the HealthCare.gov platform covers 36 states, down from 38 for the 2020 benefit year, because New Jersey and Pennsylvania have “transitioned to their own state-based exchange platforms,” the CMS noted, adding that the two accounted for 7% of all plans selected last year.

“The final number of plan selections associated with enrollment activity during a reporting period may change due to plan modifications or cancellations,” CMS said, and its weekly snapshot “does not report the number of consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment.”

This year’s open-enrollment period on HealthCare.gov is scheduled to conclude Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Over 818,000 plans were selected for the 2021 coverage year during the first week, Nov.1-7, of this year’s open enrollment on the federal health insurance exchange, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The bulk of those plans, nearly 79%, were renewals by consumers who had coverage through the federal exchange this year. The balance covers new plans selected by individuals who were not covered through HealthCare.gov this year, the CMS noted in a written statement.

The total enrollment for week 1 marks a considerable increase over last year’s first week of open enrollment, which saw approximately 177,000 plans selected, but Nov. 1 fell on a Friday in 2019, so that total represents only 2 days since weeks are tracked as running from Sunday to Saturday, the CMS explained.

For the 2021 benefit year, the HealthCare.gov platform covers 36 states, down from 38 for the 2020 benefit year, because New Jersey and Pennsylvania have “transitioned to their own state-based exchange platforms,” the CMS noted, adding that the two accounted for 7% of all plans selected last year.

“The final number of plan selections associated with enrollment activity during a reporting period may change due to plan modifications or cancellations,” CMS said, and its weekly snapshot “does not report the number of consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment.”

This year’s open-enrollment period on HealthCare.gov is scheduled to conclude Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Over 818,000 plans were selected for the 2021 coverage year during the first week, Nov.1-7, of this year’s open enrollment on the federal health insurance exchange, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The bulk of those plans, nearly 79%, were renewals by consumers who had coverage through the federal exchange this year. The balance covers new plans selected by individuals who were not covered through HealthCare.gov this year, the CMS noted in a written statement.

The total enrollment for week 1 marks a considerable increase over last year’s first week of open enrollment, which saw approximately 177,000 plans selected, but Nov. 1 fell on a Friday in 2019, so that total represents only 2 days since weeks are tracked as running from Sunday to Saturday, the CMS explained.

For the 2021 benefit year, the HealthCare.gov platform covers 36 states, down from 38 for the 2020 benefit year, because New Jersey and Pennsylvania have “transitioned to their own state-based exchange platforms,” the CMS noted, adding that the two accounted for 7% of all plans selected last year.

“The final number of plan selections associated with enrollment activity during a reporting period may change due to plan modifications or cancellations,” CMS said, and its weekly snapshot “does not report the number of consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment.”

This year’s open-enrollment period on HealthCare.gov is scheduled to conclude Dec. 15.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, yielded 94.5% efficacy in early results and is generally well tolerated, the company announced early Monday. The product can be stored at refrigeration temperatures common to many physician offices, pharmacies, and hospitals.

The first interim results of the phase 3 COVE trial included 95 participants with confirmed COVID-19. An independent data safety monitoring board, which was appointed by the National Institutes of Health, informed Moderna that 90 of the patients who were positive for COVID-19 were in a placebo group and that 5 patients were in the mRNA-1273 vaccine group, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (P < .0001).

Interim data included 11 patients with severe COVID-19, all of whom were in the placebo group.

“This positive interim analysis from our phase 3 study has given us the first clinical validation that our vaccine can prevent COVID-19 disease, including severe disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, said in a statement.

The vaccine met its primary study endpoint, which was based on adjudicated data that were collected starting 2 weeks after the second dose of mRNA-1273. The interim study population included people who could be at higher risk for COVID-19, including 15 adults aged 65 years and older and 20 participants from diverse communities.
 

Safety data

The DSMB also reviewed safety data for the COVE study interim results. The vaccine was generally safe and well tolerated, as determined on the basis of solicited adverse events. Most adverse events were mild to moderate and were generally short-lived, according to a company news release.

Injection-site pain was reported in 2.7% of participants after the first dose. After the second dose, 9.7% of participants reported fatigue, 8.9% reported myalgia, 5.2% reported arthralgia, 4.5% reported headache, 4.1% reported pain, and 2.0% reported erythema or redness at the injection site.

Moderna plans to request emergency-use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration in the coming weeks. The company expects that the EUA will be based on more data from the COVE study, including a final analysis of 151 patients with a median follow-up of more than 2 months. Moderna also plans to seek authorizations from global regulatory agencies.

The company expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 ready to ship in the United States by the end of the year. In addition, the company says it remains on track to manufacture between 500 million and 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

Moderna is developing distribution plans in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed, and McKesson, a COVID-19 vaccine distributor contracted by the U.S. government.
 

Refrigeration requirements

The mRNA-1273 vaccine can be shipped and stored for up to 6 months at –20° C (about –4° F), a temperature maintained in most home or medical freezers, according to Moderna. The company expects that, after the product thaws, it will remain stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2°-8° C (36°-46° F) for up to 30 days within the 6-month shelf life.

Because the mRNA-1273 vaccine is stable at these refrigerator temperatures, it can be stored at most physicians’ offices, pharmacies, and hospitals, the company noted. In contrast, the similar Pfizer BTN162b2 vaccine – early results for which showed a 90% efficacy rate – requires shipment and storage at “deep-freeze” conditions of –70° C or –80° C, which is more challenging from a logistic point of view.

Moderna’s mRNA-1273 can be kept at room temperature for up to 12 hours after removal from a refrigerator for patient administration. The vaccine will not require dilution prior to use.

More than 30,000 people aged older than 18 years in the United States are enrolled in the COVE study. The research is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health & Human Services.

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

The Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, yielded 94.5% efficacy in early results and is generally well tolerated, the company announced early Monday. The product can be stored at refrigeration temperatures common to many physician offices, pharmacies, and hospitals.

The first interim results of the phase 3 COVE trial included 95 participants with confirmed COVID-19. An independent data safety monitoring board, which was appointed by the National Institutes of Health, informed Moderna that 90 of the patients who were positive for COVID-19 were in a placebo group and that 5 patients were in the mRNA-1273 vaccine group, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (P < .0001).

Interim data included 11 patients with severe COVID-19, all of whom were in the placebo group.

“This positive interim analysis from our phase 3 study has given us the first clinical validation that our vaccine can prevent COVID-19 disease, including severe disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, said in a statement.

The vaccine met its primary study endpoint, which was based on adjudicated data that were collected starting 2 weeks after the second dose of mRNA-1273. The interim study population included people who could be at higher risk for COVID-19, including 15 adults aged 65 years and older and 20 participants from diverse communities.
 

Safety data

The DSMB also reviewed safety data for the COVE study interim results. The vaccine was generally safe and well tolerated, as determined on the basis of solicited adverse events. Most adverse events were mild to moderate and were generally short-lived, according to a company news release.

Injection-site pain was reported in 2.7% of participants after the first dose. After the second dose, 9.7% of participants reported fatigue, 8.9% reported myalgia, 5.2% reported arthralgia, 4.5% reported headache, 4.1% reported pain, and 2.0% reported erythema or redness at the injection site.

Moderna plans to request emergency-use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration in the coming weeks. The company expects that the EUA will be based on more data from the COVE study, including a final analysis of 151 patients with a median follow-up of more than 2 months. Moderna also plans to seek authorizations from global regulatory agencies.

The company expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 ready to ship in the United States by the end of the year. In addition, the company says it remains on track to manufacture between 500 million and 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

Moderna is developing distribution plans in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed, and McKesson, a COVID-19 vaccine distributor contracted by the U.S. government.
 

Refrigeration requirements

The mRNA-1273 vaccine can be shipped and stored for up to 6 months at –20° C (about –4° F), a temperature maintained in most home or medical freezers, according to Moderna. The company expects that, after the product thaws, it will remain stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2°-8° C (36°-46° F) for up to 30 days within the 6-month shelf life.

Because the mRNA-1273 vaccine is stable at these refrigerator temperatures, it can be stored at most physicians’ offices, pharmacies, and hospitals, the company noted. In contrast, the similar Pfizer BTN162b2 vaccine – early results for which showed a 90% efficacy rate – requires shipment and storage at “deep-freeze” conditions of –70° C or –80° C, which is more challenging from a logistic point of view.

Moderna’s mRNA-1273 can be kept at room temperature for up to 12 hours after removal from a refrigerator for patient administration. The vaccine will not require dilution prior to use.

More than 30,000 people aged older than 18 years in the United States are enrolled in the COVE study. The research is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health & Human Services.

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

The Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, yielded 94.5% efficacy in early results and is generally well tolerated, the company announced early Monday. The product can be stored at refrigeration temperatures common to many physician offices, pharmacies, and hospitals.

The first interim results of the phase 3 COVE trial included 95 participants with confirmed COVID-19. An independent data safety monitoring board, which was appointed by the National Institutes of Health, informed Moderna that 90 of the patients who were positive for COVID-19 were in a placebo group and that 5 patients were in the mRNA-1273 vaccine group, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (P < .0001).

Interim data included 11 patients with severe COVID-19, all of whom were in the placebo group.

“This positive interim analysis from our phase 3 study has given us the first clinical validation that our vaccine can prevent COVID-19 disease, including severe disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, said in a statement.

The vaccine met its primary study endpoint, which was based on adjudicated data that were collected starting 2 weeks after the second dose of mRNA-1273. The interim study population included people who could be at higher risk for COVID-19, including 15 adults aged 65 years and older and 20 participants from diverse communities.
 

Safety data

The DSMB also reviewed safety data for the COVE study interim results. The vaccine was generally safe and well tolerated, as determined on the basis of solicited adverse events. Most adverse events were mild to moderate and were generally short-lived, according to a company news release.

Injection-site pain was reported in 2.7% of participants after the first dose. After the second dose, 9.7% of participants reported fatigue, 8.9% reported myalgia, 5.2% reported arthralgia, 4.5% reported headache, 4.1% reported pain, and 2.0% reported erythema or redness at the injection site.

Moderna plans to request emergency-use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration in the coming weeks. The company expects that the EUA will be based on more data from the COVE study, including a final analysis of 151 patients with a median follow-up of more than 2 months. Moderna also plans to seek authorizations from global regulatory agencies.

The company expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 ready to ship in the United States by the end of the year. In addition, the company says it remains on track to manufacture between 500 million and 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

Moderna is developing distribution plans in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed, and McKesson, a COVID-19 vaccine distributor contracted by the U.S. government.
 

Refrigeration requirements

The mRNA-1273 vaccine can be shipped and stored for up to 6 months at –20° C (about –4° F), a temperature maintained in most home or medical freezers, according to Moderna. The company expects that, after the product thaws, it will remain stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2°-8° C (36°-46° F) for up to 30 days within the 6-month shelf life.

Because the mRNA-1273 vaccine is stable at these refrigerator temperatures, it can be stored at most physicians’ offices, pharmacies, and hospitals, the company noted. In contrast, the similar Pfizer BTN162b2 vaccine – early results for which showed a 90% efficacy rate – requires shipment and storage at “deep-freeze” conditions of –70° C or –80° C, which is more challenging from a logistic point of view.

Moderna’s mRNA-1273 can be kept at room temperature for up to 12 hours after removal from a refrigerator for patient administration. The vaccine will not require dilution prior to use.

More than 30,000 people aged older than 18 years in the United States are enrolled in the COVE study. The research is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health & Human Services.

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

"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.

That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.

“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
 

Early data, tiered interventions

Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.

Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.

“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”

That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.

He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.

Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.

“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:

• Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
• How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
• Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
• How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
• Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
• Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?

Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.

These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.

He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.

For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.

“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
 

Stigma on stigma

The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.

Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.

The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.

“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”

During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.

For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.

They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.

“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.

That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.

“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
 

Early data, tiered interventions

Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.

Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.

“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”

That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.

He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.

Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.

“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:

• Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
• How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
• Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
• How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
• Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
• Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?

Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.

These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.

He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.

For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.

“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
 

Stigma on stigma

The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.

Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.

The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.

“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”

During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.

For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.

They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.

“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.

That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.

“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
 

Early data, tiered interventions

Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.

Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.

“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”

That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.

He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.

Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.

“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:

• Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
• How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
• Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
• How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
• Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
• Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?

Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.

These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.

He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.

For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.

“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
 

Stigma on stigma

The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.

Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.

The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.

“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”

During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.

For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.

They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.

“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.

“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.

Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.

“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”

The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.

Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.

Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
 

Colleges likely driving spike

Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.

Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.

“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.

McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.

Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.

Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.

Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.

“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.

There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”

McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.

“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.

Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.

“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”

The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.

Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.

Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
 

Colleges likely driving spike

Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.

Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.

“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.

McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.

Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.

Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.

Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.

“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.

There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”

McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.

“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.

Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.

“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”

The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.

Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.

Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
 

Colleges likely driving spike

Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.

Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.

“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.

McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.

Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.

Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.

Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.

“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.

There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”

McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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