User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Inside the flawed White House testing scheme that did not protect Trump
The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.
The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests.
An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.
Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.
The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials.
The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.
The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.
Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.
“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”
The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.
However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.
“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.
Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.
At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.
“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.
Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.
He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.
While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.
“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.
Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.
It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”
In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.
“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.
Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.
Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.
“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.
The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests.
An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.
Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.
The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials.
The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.
The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.
Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.
“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”
The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.
However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.
“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.
Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.
At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.
“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.
Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.
He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.
While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.
“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.
Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.
It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”
In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.
“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.
Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.
Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.
“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.
The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests.
An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.
Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.
The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials.
The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.
The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.
Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.
“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”
The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.
However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.
“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.
Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.
At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.
“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.
Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.
He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.
While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.
“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.
Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.
It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”
In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.
“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.
Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.
Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.
“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Use of e-cigarettes may be linked to sleep deprivation
compared with those who have never used e-cigarettes, according to the first study to evaluate the association in a large, nationally representative population of young adults.
“The e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation association seems to have a dose-response nature as the point estimate of the association increased with increased exposure to e-cigarette,” Sina Kianersi, DVM, and associates at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in Addictive Behaviors.
Sleep deprivation was 49% more prevalent among everyday users of e-cigarettes, compared with nonusers. Prevalence ratios for former users (1.31) and occasional users (1.25) also showed significantly higher sleep deprivation, compared with nonusers, they reported based on a bivariate analysis of data from young adults aged 18-24 years who participated in the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.
After adjustment for multiple confounders, young adults who currently used e-cigarettes every day were 42% more likely to report sleep deprivation than those who never used e-cigarettes, a difference that was statistically significant. The prevalence of sleep deprivation among those who used e-cigarettes on some days was not significantly higher (prevalence ratio, 1.08), but the ratio between former users and never users was a significant 1.17, the investigators said.
“The nicotine in the inhaled e-cigarette aerosols may have negative effects on sleep architecture and disturb the neurotransmitters that regulate sleep cycle,” they suggested, and since higher doses of nicotine produce greater reductions in sleep duration, “those who use e-cigarette on a daily basis might consume higher doses of nicotine, compared to some days, former, and never users, and therefore get fewer hours of sleep.”
Nicotine withdrawal, on the other hand, has been found to increase sleep duration in a dose-dependent manner, which “could explain the smaller [prevalence ratios] observed for the association between e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation among former and some days e-cigarette users,” Dr. Kianersi and associates added.
The bivariate analysis involved 18,945 survey respondents, of whom 16,427 were included in the fully adjusted model using 12 confounding factors.
SOURCE: Kianersi S et al. Addict Behav. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106646.
compared with those who have never used e-cigarettes, according to the first study to evaluate the association in a large, nationally representative population of young adults.
“The e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation association seems to have a dose-response nature as the point estimate of the association increased with increased exposure to e-cigarette,” Sina Kianersi, DVM, and associates at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in Addictive Behaviors.
Sleep deprivation was 49% more prevalent among everyday users of e-cigarettes, compared with nonusers. Prevalence ratios for former users (1.31) and occasional users (1.25) also showed significantly higher sleep deprivation, compared with nonusers, they reported based on a bivariate analysis of data from young adults aged 18-24 years who participated in the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.
After adjustment for multiple confounders, young adults who currently used e-cigarettes every day were 42% more likely to report sleep deprivation than those who never used e-cigarettes, a difference that was statistically significant. The prevalence of sleep deprivation among those who used e-cigarettes on some days was not significantly higher (prevalence ratio, 1.08), but the ratio between former users and never users was a significant 1.17, the investigators said.
“The nicotine in the inhaled e-cigarette aerosols may have negative effects on sleep architecture and disturb the neurotransmitters that regulate sleep cycle,” they suggested, and since higher doses of nicotine produce greater reductions in sleep duration, “those who use e-cigarette on a daily basis might consume higher doses of nicotine, compared to some days, former, and never users, and therefore get fewer hours of sleep.”
Nicotine withdrawal, on the other hand, has been found to increase sleep duration in a dose-dependent manner, which “could explain the smaller [prevalence ratios] observed for the association between e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation among former and some days e-cigarette users,” Dr. Kianersi and associates added.
The bivariate analysis involved 18,945 survey respondents, of whom 16,427 were included in the fully adjusted model using 12 confounding factors.
SOURCE: Kianersi S et al. Addict Behav. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106646.
compared with those who have never used e-cigarettes, according to the first study to evaluate the association in a large, nationally representative population of young adults.
“The e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation association seems to have a dose-response nature as the point estimate of the association increased with increased exposure to e-cigarette,” Sina Kianersi, DVM, and associates at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in Addictive Behaviors.
Sleep deprivation was 49% more prevalent among everyday users of e-cigarettes, compared with nonusers. Prevalence ratios for former users (1.31) and occasional users (1.25) also showed significantly higher sleep deprivation, compared with nonusers, they reported based on a bivariate analysis of data from young adults aged 18-24 years who participated in the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.
After adjustment for multiple confounders, young adults who currently used e-cigarettes every day were 42% more likely to report sleep deprivation than those who never used e-cigarettes, a difference that was statistically significant. The prevalence of sleep deprivation among those who used e-cigarettes on some days was not significantly higher (prevalence ratio, 1.08), but the ratio between former users and never users was a significant 1.17, the investigators said.
“The nicotine in the inhaled e-cigarette aerosols may have negative effects on sleep architecture and disturb the neurotransmitters that regulate sleep cycle,” they suggested, and since higher doses of nicotine produce greater reductions in sleep duration, “those who use e-cigarette on a daily basis might consume higher doses of nicotine, compared to some days, former, and never users, and therefore get fewer hours of sleep.”
Nicotine withdrawal, on the other hand, has been found to increase sleep duration in a dose-dependent manner, which “could explain the smaller [prevalence ratios] observed for the association between e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation among former and some days e-cigarette users,” Dr. Kianersi and associates added.
The bivariate analysis involved 18,945 survey respondents, of whom 16,427 were included in the fully adjusted model using 12 confounding factors.
SOURCE: Kianersi S et al. Addict Behav. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106646.
FROM ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
TV watching linked to depression
While anxiety was at the top of my list of emotional states that generated office visits in my pediatric practice, depression always ran a close second. Not infrequently, patients would report symptoms that suggested they were harboring both morbidities.
Although some families appear to be prone to depression, I’m not aware that a definable genetic basis has been discovered. Like me, you may have wondered what factors determine whether an individual will become depressed or merely be unhappy when things aren’t going well. We all have known people who have weathered disappointment and life-altering calamities without even a hint of being depressed. On the other hand you probably have met numerous patients and acquaintances who have become significantly depressed as the result of simply worrying that some disaster might befall them.
Is this variable vulnerability to depression the result of some as yet undiscovered neurotransmitter? Or are there certain lifestyle features that make individuals more prone to depression? Or ... could it be both? In other words are there behaviors that can tweak a person’s telomeres in such a way that triggers a biochemical cascade that results in depression?
A recent paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry doesn’t drill down through the genetic and biochemical strata, but it does suggest that there are “modifiable” behaviors that may contribute to depression. The researchers based at Harvard Medical School in Boston accessed a database of more than 100,000 adults in the United Kingdom. With use of a two-stage method that included a strategy similar to that employed for identifying genetic risk factors for disease, the researchers scanned a large number of factors that they considered modifiable, searching for those that might be associated with the development of depression.
Not surprisingly, they discovered that those respondents who more frequently confided in others and more frequently visited with family and friends were less likely to become depressed. Of course, this protective effect of social connection can cut both ways during the pandemic. During this pandemic if those people you confide in are not currently in your “bubble,” you may have a problem. This may explain why, despite warnings of their dangers, bars continue to be so attractive. It’s probably not just the alcohol but it’s the bartenders and patrons who are willing to listen that patrons seek out. It would be helpful if more people felt comfortable sharing their feelings with members of their family bubble. But you and I know that many families don’t come even close to matching the Brady Bunch image of a functionality.
Somewhat surprisingly to the Harvard researchers was their finding that time watching television also was a significant risk factor for the development of depression. Their data did not allow them to determine whether this observation was linked to the sedentary nature of television watching or the content of the shows being viewed. I suspect that content is not the problem. But in addition to being a sedentary activity, television watching often is isolating. When television was first introduced to the mass market, families grouped around the household’s lone set, much as families did back when radios became popular. In their infancy radio listening and television viewing were social activities rich with discussion and shared emotions.
However, as televisions became less expensive and no longer required large pieces of furniture to house them, television viewing became a more solitary and individual activity. Televisions became obligatory furnishings of every bedroom, and parents and children could withdraw to their own spaces and be entertained free of any opportunity or obligation to interact with the rest of family.
This new research into the risk factors for depression suggests that again without any way of monitoring their usage. At least among children, television watching should be a modifiable behavior.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
While anxiety was at the top of my list of emotional states that generated office visits in my pediatric practice, depression always ran a close second. Not infrequently, patients would report symptoms that suggested they were harboring both morbidities.
Although some families appear to be prone to depression, I’m not aware that a definable genetic basis has been discovered. Like me, you may have wondered what factors determine whether an individual will become depressed or merely be unhappy when things aren’t going well. We all have known people who have weathered disappointment and life-altering calamities without even a hint of being depressed. On the other hand you probably have met numerous patients and acquaintances who have become significantly depressed as the result of simply worrying that some disaster might befall them.
Is this variable vulnerability to depression the result of some as yet undiscovered neurotransmitter? Or are there certain lifestyle features that make individuals more prone to depression? Or ... could it be both? In other words are there behaviors that can tweak a person’s telomeres in such a way that triggers a biochemical cascade that results in depression?
A recent paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry doesn’t drill down through the genetic and biochemical strata, but it does suggest that there are “modifiable” behaviors that may contribute to depression. The researchers based at Harvard Medical School in Boston accessed a database of more than 100,000 adults in the United Kingdom. With use of a two-stage method that included a strategy similar to that employed for identifying genetic risk factors for disease, the researchers scanned a large number of factors that they considered modifiable, searching for those that might be associated with the development of depression.
Not surprisingly, they discovered that those respondents who more frequently confided in others and more frequently visited with family and friends were less likely to become depressed. Of course, this protective effect of social connection can cut both ways during the pandemic. During this pandemic if those people you confide in are not currently in your “bubble,” you may have a problem. This may explain why, despite warnings of their dangers, bars continue to be so attractive. It’s probably not just the alcohol but it’s the bartenders and patrons who are willing to listen that patrons seek out. It would be helpful if more people felt comfortable sharing their feelings with members of their family bubble. But you and I know that many families don’t come even close to matching the Brady Bunch image of a functionality.
Somewhat surprisingly to the Harvard researchers was their finding that time watching television also was a significant risk factor for the development of depression. Their data did not allow them to determine whether this observation was linked to the sedentary nature of television watching or the content of the shows being viewed. I suspect that content is not the problem. But in addition to being a sedentary activity, television watching often is isolating. When television was first introduced to the mass market, families grouped around the household’s lone set, much as families did back when radios became popular. In their infancy radio listening and television viewing were social activities rich with discussion and shared emotions.
However, as televisions became less expensive and no longer required large pieces of furniture to house them, television viewing became a more solitary and individual activity. Televisions became obligatory furnishings of every bedroom, and parents and children could withdraw to their own spaces and be entertained free of any opportunity or obligation to interact with the rest of family.
This new research into the risk factors for depression suggests that again without any way of monitoring their usage. At least among children, television watching should be a modifiable behavior.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
While anxiety was at the top of my list of emotional states that generated office visits in my pediatric practice, depression always ran a close second. Not infrequently, patients would report symptoms that suggested they were harboring both morbidities.
Although some families appear to be prone to depression, I’m not aware that a definable genetic basis has been discovered. Like me, you may have wondered what factors determine whether an individual will become depressed or merely be unhappy when things aren’t going well. We all have known people who have weathered disappointment and life-altering calamities without even a hint of being depressed. On the other hand you probably have met numerous patients and acquaintances who have become significantly depressed as the result of simply worrying that some disaster might befall them.
Is this variable vulnerability to depression the result of some as yet undiscovered neurotransmitter? Or are there certain lifestyle features that make individuals more prone to depression? Or ... could it be both? In other words are there behaviors that can tweak a person’s telomeres in such a way that triggers a biochemical cascade that results in depression?
A recent paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry doesn’t drill down through the genetic and biochemical strata, but it does suggest that there are “modifiable” behaviors that may contribute to depression. The researchers based at Harvard Medical School in Boston accessed a database of more than 100,000 adults in the United Kingdom. With use of a two-stage method that included a strategy similar to that employed for identifying genetic risk factors for disease, the researchers scanned a large number of factors that they considered modifiable, searching for those that might be associated with the development of depression.
Not surprisingly, they discovered that those respondents who more frequently confided in others and more frequently visited with family and friends were less likely to become depressed. Of course, this protective effect of social connection can cut both ways during the pandemic. During this pandemic if those people you confide in are not currently in your “bubble,” you may have a problem. This may explain why, despite warnings of their dangers, bars continue to be so attractive. It’s probably not just the alcohol but it’s the bartenders and patrons who are willing to listen that patrons seek out. It would be helpful if more people felt comfortable sharing their feelings with members of their family bubble. But you and I know that many families don’t come even close to matching the Brady Bunch image of a functionality.
Somewhat surprisingly to the Harvard researchers was their finding that time watching television also was a significant risk factor for the development of depression. Their data did not allow them to determine whether this observation was linked to the sedentary nature of television watching or the content of the shows being viewed. I suspect that content is not the problem. But in addition to being a sedentary activity, television watching often is isolating. When television was first introduced to the mass market, families grouped around the household’s lone set, much as families did back when radios became popular. In their infancy radio listening and television viewing were social activities rich with discussion and shared emotions.
However, as televisions became less expensive and no longer required large pieces of furniture to house them, television viewing became a more solitary and individual activity. Televisions became obligatory furnishings of every bedroom, and parents and children could withdraw to their own spaces and be entertained free of any opportunity or obligation to interact with the rest of family.
This new research into the risk factors for depression suggests that again without any way of monitoring their usage. At least among children, television watching should be a modifiable behavior.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Golimumab approval extended to polyarticular-course JIA and juvenile PsA
after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.
Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m2, also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.
The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.
The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.
after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.
Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m2, also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.
The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.
The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.
after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.
Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m2, also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.
The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.
The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.
‘Celebration’ will be ‘short-lived’ if COVID vaccine rushed: Experts
on Wednesday.
The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.
FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.
“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.
“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”
Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.
“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.
President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.
Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.
In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.
In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Pushback on politics
Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.
“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”
Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.
Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.
Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.
“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.
Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.
“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.
Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.
COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.
Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness
In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.
Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”
There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.
“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.
“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.
“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”
But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.
“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.
He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.
“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on Wednesday.
The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.
FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.
“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.
“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”
Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.
“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.
President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.
Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.
In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.
In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Pushback on politics
Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.
“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”
Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.
Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.
Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.
“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.
Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.
“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.
Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.
COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.
Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness
In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.
Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”
There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.
“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.
“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.
“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”
But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.
“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.
He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.
“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on Wednesday.
The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.
FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.
“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.
“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”
Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.
“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.
President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.
Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.
In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.
In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Pushback on politics
Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.
“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”
Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.
Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.
Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.
“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.
Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.
“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.
Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.
COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.
Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness
In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.
Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”
There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.
“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.
“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.
“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”
But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.
“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.
He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.
“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Post-COVID clinics get jump-start from patients with lingering illness
Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.
“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”
He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.
As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.
“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.
That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.
One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.
Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.
“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
‘Staggering’ medical need
It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.
Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.
Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.
If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.
How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”
Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.
Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.
“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.
The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.
“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.
About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.
“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.
Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.
The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.
There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.
The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.
“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
A question of feasibility
Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.
“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.
At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.
Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.
Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.
“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”
Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.
“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”
He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.
As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.
“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.
That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.
One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.
Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.
“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
‘Staggering’ medical need
It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.
Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.
Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.
If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.
How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”
Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.
Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.
“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.
The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.
“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.
About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.
“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.
Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.
The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.
There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.
The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.
“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
A question of feasibility
Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.
“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.
At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.
Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.
Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.
“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”
Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.
“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”
He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.
As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.
“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.
That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.
One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.
Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.
“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
‘Staggering’ medical need
It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.
Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.
Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.
If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.
How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”
Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.
Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.
“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.
The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.
“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.
About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.
“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.
Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.
The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.
There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.
The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.
“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
A question of feasibility
Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.
“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.
At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.
Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.
Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.
“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”
Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Nerve damage linked to prone positioning in COVID-19
A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.
“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.
The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
Unique type of nerve injury
Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.
“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.
With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.
Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”
Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.
The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.
The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
A major contributor
Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”
“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.
“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.
The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.
“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.
Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.
Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.
Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.
“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.
The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
Irreversible damage?
Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”
Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”
The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.
“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.
The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
Unique type of nerve injury
Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.
“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.
With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.
Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”
Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.
The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.
The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
A major contributor
Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”
“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.
“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.
The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.
“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.
Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.
Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.
Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.
“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.
The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
Irreversible damage?
Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”
Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”
The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.
“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.
The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
Unique type of nerve injury
Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.
“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.
With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.
Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”
Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.
The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.
The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
A major contributor
Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”
“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.
“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.
The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.
“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.
Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.
Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.
Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.
“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.
The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
Irreversible damage?
Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”
Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”
The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
Trump signs Medicare loan relief bill delaying repayments
President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.
In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.
Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.
Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.
For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
New terms
The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.
More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.
In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.
In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.
Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.
Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.
For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
New terms
The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.
More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.
In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.
In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.
Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.
Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.
For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
New terms
The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.
More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.
In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19’s psychological impact gets a name
During normal times, the U.K.-based charity No Panic offers itself as an easily accessible service to those with anxiety disorders and phobias. Visitors to the website who can receive immediate, remote support from trained volunteers. But this spring was anything but normal, as the reality of COVID-19’s worldwide spread became terrifyingly clear.
COVID-19 cases peaked in the United Kingdom in early April. Nationwide lockdown efforts contributed to a gradual but ultimately substantial decline in cases, yet, despite the favorable trend lines, No Panic has remained busier than ever.
Beyond the physical symptoms associated with COVID-19, the psychological outcomes are vast and, it seems, prolonged. Researchers have now formalized a definition of the long-term mental maladies associated with the pandemic, collectively deeming them “coronaphobia.”
The term is a catch-all phrase for the fear and the emotional and social strain experienced by the general public in response to COVID-19. Obsessive behaviors, distress, avoidance reaction, panic, anxiety, hoarding, paranoia, and depression are some of the responses associated with coronaphobia. On the surface, these appear to be normal, somewhat fitting reactions to this surreal and frightening moment in time. However, for those experiencing coronaphobia, they are distinctly maladaptive and harmful.
“We had a serious rise in the use of our services, notably the helpline and email enquiries,” explained Sarah Floyd, No Panic’s volunteer advisor and social media coordinator. “It has been up and down all along, but more of an up since lockdown is easing.”
The group’s experience offers yet more evidence that the anxieties and fears caused by this global pandemic don’t flatten alongside the curve but instead linger as chronic problems requiring ongoing care.
“Every week in my clinic, I’m seeing people who are experiencing more anxiety and hopelessness and having an emotional response that is perhaps out of proportion to what one would expect, which is directly related to what is going on in the world right now with coronavirus,” said Gregory Scott Brown, MD, founder and director of the Center for Green Psychiatry in West Lake Hills, Tex. “Simply put, I think what we are looking at is adjustment disorder. That is probably how the DSM would define it.”
Adjustment disorder is one of the most frequently diagnosed mental health conditions, although it is also relatively understudied. It is really a set of disorders that follow in the wake of a significant stressor, which can vary from serious illness or the death of a loved one to relocating or experiencing work problems. The resulting dysfunction and distress that the person experiences are considered out of proportion in duration or scale with what would normally be expected. Diagnosing an adjustment disorder is made difficult by the lack of a valid and reliable screening measure.
Recent literature suggests that coronaphobia may be likely to occur in those who feel vulnerable to disease, are predisposed to anxiety, or are intolerant of uncertainty. Preexisting mental health conditions can also be exacerbated by periods of quarantine, self-isolation, and lockdown, which can lead to panic attacks, chronophobia (fear of passing time), and suicidality.
Although imperfect comparisons, findings from earlier 21st century disease outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and the Ebola virus, signal that containment efforts themselves play a role in deteriorating mental health. A recent rapid review found that, in studies comparing persons who had previously undergone quarantines and those who had not, the former were significantly more likely to experience acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and depression. Quarantine was found to result in long-term behavioral changes, such as avoiding crowds, among the general public and health care practitioners.
That tremendous psychological morbidity should accompany a global pandemic of this scale is not surprising, according to Amit Anand, MD, vice chair for research for the Center for Behavioral Health and director of the Mood and Emotional Disorders Across the Life Span program at the Cleveland Clinic.
“The technical definition of anxiety is an impending sense of doom, and I think all of us are living with that,” Dr. Anand said. “The basic question then becomes, what is normal and when does it become abnormal?”
He added that most classifications of psychiatric disorders are set during periods of relative stability, which the current moment is most certainly not.
“This is such an unusual situation, so I think it will depend on case-by-case basis, keeping the whole context in mind as whether the patient is thinking or behaving with an abnormal amount of anxiety,” Dr. Anand said.
Investigators are currently trying to give clinicians the tools to better make that determination. In the first scientific study of this clinical condition, Sherman Lee, MD, reported that five symptoms – dizziness, sleep disturbances, tonic immobility, appetite loss, and nausea/abdominal distress – were strong factors for distinguishing coronaphobia from otherwise normal concerns about COVID-19 that did not result in functional impairment. Dr. Lee and colleagues have since published further evidence that coronaphobia “is a unique predictor of psychological distress during the COVID-19 crisis.” They are working on validating a self-reported mental health screener for this condition.
Having the tools to identify patients struggling with coronaphobia may go some ways toward addressing another area of declining health. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a question as to whether doctors would be beset by a surge of the “worried well” – persons mistakenly believing themselves to be infected. Now months into the pandemic, the converse phenomenon – a fear of contracting COVID-19 that is driving patients away from practitioners – appears to be the more valid concern.
In early spring, the pandemic’s first surge was accompanied by reports of approximately 40% and 60% drops in visits to EDs and ambulatory centers, respectively. Stories of acute stroke patients avoiding treatment began to appear in the press. Major U.S. cities saw noteworthy declines in 911 calls, indicating a hesitancy to be taken to a hospital. That COVID-19 has been accompanied by mass unemployment and subsequent loss of insurance complicates the notion that fear alone is keeping people from treatment. In other countries, it has been explicitly linked. Investigators in Singapore noted that coronaphobia played a role in reducing willingness to attend in-person visits among adolescents with eating disorders. Similarly, case reports in Israel suggest that coronaphobia has contributed to delays in diagnoses of common pediatric diseases.
There is also a concern, colloquially termed “reentry anxiety,” that mental health problems caused by the pandemic, the accompanying lockdown, self-isolation, and quarantine practices will prove alarmingly durable. Even after this challenging moment in history draws to a close, many people may face substantial stress in returning to the normal activities of life – social, professional, familial – once taken for granted.
“We are in the beginning phase of that now,” said Dr. Anand. “ I think the longer it goes on for, the more difficult it will be.”
In the United States, that day may seem far away. Nonetheless, it is important to begin laying the therapeutic groundwork now, according to Dr. Brown.
“I am recommending unconventional therapies like meet-up groups, online forums,” he said. “Everything has shifted online, and so there are a lot of support groups that patients can participate to learn coping skills and really hear what other people are going through.”
Before reaching that stage, Dr. Brown recommends that clinicians first simply discuss such anxieties with their patients in order to normalize them.
“Realize that everyone essentially is going through some degree of this right now. The coronavirus pandemic is literally impacting every person on the face of the planet. Sometimes just pointing that out to people can really help,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
During normal times, the U.K.-based charity No Panic offers itself as an easily accessible service to those with anxiety disorders and phobias. Visitors to the website who can receive immediate, remote support from trained volunteers. But this spring was anything but normal, as the reality of COVID-19’s worldwide spread became terrifyingly clear.
COVID-19 cases peaked in the United Kingdom in early April. Nationwide lockdown efforts contributed to a gradual but ultimately substantial decline in cases, yet, despite the favorable trend lines, No Panic has remained busier than ever.
Beyond the physical symptoms associated with COVID-19, the psychological outcomes are vast and, it seems, prolonged. Researchers have now formalized a definition of the long-term mental maladies associated with the pandemic, collectively deeming them “coronaphobia.”
The term is a catch-all phrase for the fear and the emotional and social strain experienced by the general public in response to COVID-19. Obsessive behaviors, distress, avoidance reaction, panic, anxiety, hoarding, paranoia, and depression are some of the responses associated with coronaphobia. On the surface, these appear to be normal, somewhat fitting reactions to this surreal and frightening moment in time. However, for those experiencing coronaphobia, they are distinctly maladaptive and harmful.
“We had a serious rise in the use of our services, notably the helpline and email enquiries,” explained Sarah Floyd, No Panic’s volunteer advisor and social media coordinator. “It has been up and down all along, but more of an up since lockdown is easing.”
The group’s experience offers yet more evidence that the anxieties and fears caused by this global pandemic don’t flatten alongside the curve but instead linger as chronic problems requiring ongoing care.
“Every week in my clinic, I’m seeing people who are experiencing more anxiety and hopelessness and having an emotional response that is perhaps out of proportion to what one would expect, which is directly related to what is going on in the world right now with coronavirus,” said Gregory Scott Brown, MD, founder and director of the Center for Green Psychiatry in West Lake Hills, Tex. “Simply put, I think what we are looking at is adjustment disorder. That is probably how the DSM would define it.”
Adjustment disorder is one of the most frequently diagnosed mental health conditions, although it is also relatively understudied. It is really a set of disorders that follow in the wake of a significant stressor, which can vary from serious illness or the death of a loved one to relocating or experiencing work problems. The resulting dysfunction and distress that the person experiences are considered out of proportion in duration or scale with what would normally be expected. Diagnosing an adjustment disorder is made difficult by the lack of a valid and reliable screening measure.
Recent literature suggests that coronaphobia may be likely to occur in those who feel vulnerable to disease, are predisposed to anxiety, or are intolerant of uncertainty. Preexisting mental health conditions can also be exacerbated by periods of quarantine, self-isolation, and lockdown, which can lead to panic attacks, chronophobia (fear of passing time), and suicidality.
Although imperfect comparisons, findings from earlier 21st century disease outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and the Ebola virus, signal that containment efforts themselves play a role in deteriorating mental health. A recent rapid review found that, in studies comparing persons who had previously undergone quarantines and those who had not, the former were significantly more likely to experience acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and depression. Quarantine was found to result in long-term behavioral changes, such as avoiding crowds, among the general public and health care practitioners.
That tremendous psychological morbidity should accompany a global pandemic of this scale is not surprising, according to Amit Anand, MD, vice chair for research for the Center for Behavioral Health and director of the Mood and Emotional Disorders Across the Life Span program at the Cleveland Clinic.
“The technical definition of anxiety is an impending sense of doom, and I think all of us are living with that,” Dr. Anand said. “The basic question then becomes, what is normal and when does it become abnormal?”
He added that most classifications of psychiatric disorders are set during periods of relative stability, which the current moment is most certainly not.
“This is such an unusual situation, so I think it will depend on case-by-case basis, keeping the whole context in mind as whether the patient is thinking or behaving with an abnormal amount of anxiety,” Dr. Anand said.
Investigators are currently trying to give clinicians the tools to better make that determination. In the first scientific study of this clinical condition, Sherman Lee, MD, reported that five symptoms – dizziness, sleep disturbances, tonic immobility, appetite loss, and nausea/abdominal distress – were strong factors for distinguishing coronaphobia from otherwise normal concerns about COVID-19 that did not result in functional impairment. Dr. Lee and colleagues have since published further evidence that coronaphobia “is a unique predictor of psychological distress during the COVID-19 crisis.” They are working on validating a self-reported mental health screener for this condition.
Having the tools to identify patients struggling with coronaphobia may go some ways toward addressing another area of declining health. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a question as to whether doctors would be beset by a surge of the “worried well” – persons mistakenly believing themselves to be infected. Now months into the pandemic, the converse phenomenon – a fear of contracting COVID-19 that is driving patients away from practitioners – appears to be the more valid concern.
In early spring, the pandemic’s first surge was accompanied by reports of approximately 40% and 60% drops in visits to EDs and ambulatory centers, respectively. Stories of acute stroke patients avoiding treatment began to appear in the press. Major U.S. cities saw noteworthy declines in 911 calls, indicating a hesitancy to be taken to a hospital. That COVID-19 has been accompanied by mass unemployment and subsequent loss of insurance complicates the notion that fear alone is keeping people from treatment. In other countries, it has been explicitly linked. Investigators in Singapore noted that coronaphobia played a role in reducing willingness to attend in-person visits among adolescents with eating disorders. Similarly, case reports in Israel suggest that coronaphobia has contributed to delays in diagnoses of common pediatric diseases.
There is also a concern, colloquially termed “reentry anxiety,” that mental health problems caused by the pandemic, the accompanying lockdown, self-isolation, and quarantine practices will prove alarmingly durable. Even after this challenging moment in history draws to a close, many people may face substantial stress in returning to the normal activities of life – social, professional, familial – once taken for granted.
“We are in the beginning phase of that now,” said Dr. Anand. “ I think the longer it goes on for, the more difficult it will be.”
In the United States, that day may seem far away. Nonetheless, it is important to begin laying the therapeutic groundwork now, according to Dr. Brown.
“I am recommending unconventional therapies like meet-up groups, online forums,” he said. “Everything has shifted online, and so there are a lot of support groups that patients can participate to learn coping skills and really hear what other people are going through.”
Before reaching that stage, Dr. Brown recommends that clinicians first simply discuss such anxieties with their patients in order to normalize them.
“Realize that everyone essentially is going through some degree of this right now. The coronavirus pandemic is literally impacting every person on the face of the planet. Sometimes just pointing that out to people can really help,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
During normal times, the U.K.-based charity No Panic offers itself as an easily accessible service to those with anxiety disorders and phobias. Visitors to the website who can receive immediate, remote support from trained volunteers. But this spring was anything but normal, as the reality of COVID-19’s worldwide spread became terrifyingly clear.
COVID-19 cases peaked in the United Kingdom in early April. Nationwide lockdown efforts contributed to a gradual but ultimately substantial decline in cases, yet, despite the favorable trend lines, No Panic has remained busier than ever.
Beyond the physical symptoms associated with COVID-19, the psychological outcomes are vast and, it seems, prolonged. Researchers have now formalized a definition of the long-term mental maladies associated with the pandemic, collectively deeming them “coronaphobia.”
The term is a catch-all phrase for the fear and the emotional and social strain experienced by the general public in response to COVID-19. Obsessive behaviors, distress, avoidance reaction, panic, anxiety, hoarding, paranoia, and depression are some of the responses associated with coronaphobia. On the surface, these appear to be normal, somewhat fitting reactions to this surreal and frightening moment in time. However, for those experiencing coronaphobia, they are distinctly maladaptive and harmful.
“We had a serious rise in the use of our services, notably the helpline and email enquiries,” explained Sarah Floyd, No Panic’s volunteer advisor and social media coordinator. “It has been up and down all along, but more of an up since lockdown is easing.”
The group’s experience offers yet more evidence that the anxieties and fears caused by this global pandemic don’t flatten alongside the curve but instead linger as chronic problems requiring ongoing care.
“Every week in my clinic, I’m seeing people who are experiencing more anxiety and hopelessness and having an emotional response that is perhaps out of proportion to what one would expect, which is directly related to what is going on in the world right now with coronavirus,” said Gregory Scott Brown, MD, founder and director of the Center for Green Psychiatry in West Lake Hills, Tex. “Simply put, I think what we are looking at is adjustment disorder. That is probably how the DSM would define it.”
Adjustment disorder is one of the most frequently diagnosed mental health conditions, although it is also relatively understudied. It is really a set of disorders that follow in the wake of a significant stressor, which can vary from serious illness or the death of a loved one to relocating or experiencing work problems. The resulting dysfunction and distress that the person experiences are considered out of proportion in duration or scale with what would normally be expected. Diagnosing an adjustment disorder is made difficult by the lack of a valid and reliable screening measure.
Recent literature suggests that coronaphobia may be likely to occur in those who feel vulnerable to disease, are predisposed to anxiety, or are intolerant of uncertainty. Preexisting mental health conditions can also be exacerbated by periods of quarantine, self-isolation, and lockdown, which can lead to panic attacks, chronophobia (fear of passing time), and suicidality.
Although imperfect comparisons, findings from earlier 21st century disease outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and the Ebola virus, signal that containment efforts themselves play a role in deteriorating mental health. A recent rapid review found that, in studies comparing persons who had previously undergone quarantines and those who had not, the former were significantly more likely to experience acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and depression. Quarantine was found to result in long-term behavioral changes, such as avoiding crowds, among the general public and health care practitioners.
That tremendous psychological morbidity should accompany a global pandemic of this scale is not surprising, according to Amit Anand, MD, vice chair for research for the Center for Behavioral Health and director of the Mood and Emotional Disorders Across the Life Span program at the Cleveland Clinic.
“The technical definition of anxiety is an impending sense of doom, and I think all of us are living with that,” Dr. Anand said. “The basic question then becomes, what is normal and when does it become abnormal?”
He added that most classifications of psychiatric disorders are set during periods of relative stability, which the current moment is most certainly not.
“This is such an unusual situation, so I think it will depend on case-by-case basis, keeping the whole context in mind as whether the patient is thinking or behaving with an abnormal amount of anxiety,” Dr. Anand said.
Investigators are currently trying to give clinicians the tools to better make that determination. In the first scientific study of this clinical condition, Sherman Lee, MD, reported that five symptoms – dizziness, sleep disturbances, tonic immobility, appetite loss, and nausea/abdominal distress – were strong factors for distinguishing coronaphobia from otherwise normal concerns about COVID-19 that did not result in functional impairment. Dr. Lee and colleagues have since published further evidence that coronaphobia “is a unique predictor of psychological distress during the COVID-19 crisis.” They are working on validating a self-reported mental health screener for this condition.
Having the tools to identify patients struggling with coronaphobia may go some ways toward addressing another area of declining health. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a question as to whether doctors would be beset by a surge of the “worried well” – persons mistakenly believing themselves to be infected. Now months into the pandemic, the converse phenomenon – a fear of contracting COVID-19 that is driving patients away from practitioners – appears to be the more valid concern.
In early spring, the pandemic’s first surge was accompanied by reports of approximately 40% and 60% drops in visits to EDs and ambulatory centers, respectively. Stories of acute stroke patients avoiding treatment began to appear in the press. Major U.S. cities saw noteworthy declines in 911 calls, indicating a hesitancy to be taken to a hospital. That COVID-19 has been accompanied by mass unemployment and subsequent loss of insurance complicates the notion that fear alone is keeping people from treatment. In other countries, it has been explicitly linked. Investigators in Singapore noted that coronaphobia played a role in reducing willingness to attend in-person visits among adolescents with eating disorders. Similarly, case reports in Israel suggest that coronaphobia has contributed to delays in diagnoses of common pediatric diseases.
There is also a concern, colloquially termed “reentry anxiety,” that mental health problems caused by the pandemic, the accompanying lockdown, self-isolation, and quarantine practices will prove alarmingly durable. Even after this challenging moment in history draws to a close, many people may face substantial stress in returning to the normal activities of life – social, professional, familial – once taken for granted.
“We are in the beginning phase of that now,” said Dr. Anand. “ I think the longer it goes on for, the more difficult it will be.”
In the United States, that day may seem far away. Nonetheless, it is important to begin laying the therapeutic groundwork now, according to Dr. Brown.
“I am recommending unconventional therapies like meet-up groups, online forums,” he said. “Everything has shifted online, and so there are a lot of support groups that patients can participate to learn coping skills and really hear what other people are going through.”
Before reaching that stage, Dr. Brown recommends that clinicians first simply discuss such anxieties with their patients in order to normalize them.
“Realize that everyone essentially is going through some degree of this right now. The coronavirus pandemic is literally impacting every person on the face of the planet. Sometimes just pointing that out to people can really help,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Orthopedic problems in children can be the first indication of acute lymphoblastic leukemia
The diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can be delayed because of vague presentation and normal hematological results. Orthopedic manifestations may be the primary presentation of ALL to physicians, and such symptoms in children should be cause for suspicion, even in the absence of hematological abnormalities, according to a report published in the Journal of Orthopaedics.
The study retrospectively assessed 250 consecutive ALL patients at a single institution to identify the frequency of ALL cases presented to the orthopedic department and to determine the number of these patients presenting with normal hematological results, according to Amrath Raj BK, MD, and colleagues at the Manipal (India) Academy of Higher Education.
Suspicion warranted
Twenty-two of the 250 patients (8.8%) presented primarily to the orthopedic department (4 with vertebral compression fractures, 12 with joint pain, and 6 with bone pain), but were subsequently diagnosed with ALL. These results were comparable to previous studies. The mean patient age at the first visit was 5.6 years; 13 patients were boys, and 9 were girls. Six of these 22 patients (27.3%) had a normal peripheral blood smear, according to the researchers.
“Acute leukemia should be considered strongly as a differential diagnosis in children with severe osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. Initial orthopedic manifestations are not uncommon, and the primary physician should maintain a high index of suspicion as a peripheral smear is not diagnostic in all patients,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that there was no outside funding source and that they had no conflicts.
SOURCE: Raj BK A et al. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2020;22:326-330.
The diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can be delayed because of vague presentation and normal hematological results. Orthopedic manifestations may be the primary presentation of ALL to physicians, and such symptoms in children should be cause for suspicion, even in the absence of hematological abnormalities, according to a report published in the Journal of Orthopaedics.
The study retrospectively assessed 250 consecutive ALL patients at a single institution to identify the frequency of ALL cases presented to the orthopedic department and to determine the number of these patients presenting with normal hematological results, according to Amrath Raj BK, MD, and colleagues at the Manipal (India) Academy of Higher Education.
Suspicion warranted
Twenty-two of the 250 patients (8.8%) presented primarily to the orthopedic department (4 with vertebral compression fractures, 12 with joint pain, and 6 with bone pain), but were subsequently diagnosed with ALL. These results were comparable to previous studies. The mean patient age at the first visit was 5.6 years; 13 patients were boys, and 9 were girls. Six of these 22 patients (27.3%) had a normal peripheral blood smear, according to the researchers.
“Acute leukemia should be considered strongly as a differential diagnosis in children with severe osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. Initial orthopedic manifestations are not uncommon, and the primary physician should maintain a high index of suspicion as a peripheral smear is not diagnostic in all patients,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that there was no outside funding source and that they had no conflicts.
SOURCE: Raj BK A et al. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2020;22:326-330.
The diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can be delayed because of vague presentation and normal hematological results. Orthopedic manifestations may be the primary presentation of ALL to physicians, and such symptoms in children should be cause for suspicion, even in the absence of hematological abnormalities, according to a report published in the Journal of Orthopaedics.
The study retrospectively assessed 250 consecutive ALL patients at a single institution to identify the frequency of ALL cases presented to the orthopedic department and to determine the number of these patients presenting with normal hematological results, according to Amrath Raj BK, MD, and colleagues at the Manipal (India) Academy of Higher Education.
Suspicion warranted
Twenty-two of the 250 patients (8.8%) presented primarily to the orthopedic department (4 with vertebral compression fractures, 12 with joint pain, and 6 with bone pain), but were subsequently diagnosed with ALL. These results were comparable to previous studies. The mean patient age at the first visit was 5.6 years; 13 patients were boys, and 9 were girls. Six of these 22 patients (27.3%) had a normal peripheral blood smear, according to the researchers.
“Acute leukemia should be considered strongly as a differential diagnosis in children with severe osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. Initial orthopedic manifestations are not uncommon, and the primary physician should maintain a high index of suspicion as a peripheral smear is not diagnostic in all patients,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that there was no outside funding source and that they had no conflicts.
SOURCE: Raj BK A et al. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2020;22:326-330.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS