MDedge Rheumatology

I am writing this editorial on a beautiful day in the high desert of the Southwest: a bright blue clear sky such as you see only in the mountain air, a sun warm and comforting, and birds singing as if they had not a care in the world. Spring has come early as if to dramatize the cognitive dissonance between this idyllic scene and a seemingly invincible winter of disease and death that has gripped the globe.

For now, my editorials will focus on the most threatening infectious disease outbreak since, perhaps, 1918. I have been teaching public health and pandemic ethics to health care professionals and trainees for more than a decade. I always tell the medical students, “it is not if but when” the next viral wave overwhelms society. It is human nature to disbelieve this inevitability and to ignore, dismiss, or even attack the infectious disease experts and science journalists who, like Cassandra, warn us of the return of the plague.¹

In the early 2000s, virologists were concerned that Avian influenza with a mortality rate of > 60% would mutate into a virus capable of jumping the species barrier with sustained human transmission; however, that threat has not materialized (yet).² Instead, in 2009 the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck viciously. The always capricious genetic mutations of viral combinations outwitted vaccine manufacturers, offering little protection, resulting in an estimated 12,469 deaths, tragically many of them children, young, and middle-aged people.³ In between, there were periodic eruptions of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa. In 2014, 11 Americans who had either served as health care workers or traveled in the region were treated in the US.⁴

This much abridged survey of recent pandemics reminds us of how wrong were those who returning victorious from World War II with newly developed antibiotics and at the zenith of American military medicine argued that we would also beat infectious disease.⁵ As my Army pediatrician father would tell me, “the bugs will always be smarter than the drugs.” For now, COVID-19 is outwitting those in science and medicine who are engaged in a desperate race to discover a vaccine or a drug to “stop the virus in its tracks” as the media is so fond of saying.⁶ Irresponsible news outlets are giving a panicked citizenry false hope. Experts recently testified before the US House of Representatives that according to the most optimistic estimates, a vaccine is a year away.⁷ Yet information is a double-edged sword, as the Internet also is able to communicate accurate lifesaving information from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments with unprecedented speed and reach.

The best chance for civilization to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic is, as it has been so many times before, through precautionary measures and preventive public health efforts. There is a reason that in 2007, readers of the prestigious British Journal of Medicine ranked public health interventions as the most important advances in medical history.⁸

The initial installment of this pandemic series will offer a primer in public health ethics. Just as almost everything else in daily life has rapidly and radically changed, from cancelled church services to school closures, so too public health ethics is significantly different in many important aspects from the clinical health ethics we are accustomed to in our practice.

The first difference is focus. In clinical health ethics the focus of the individual health care practitioner is the individual patient, but public health ethics focuses on “what we as a society do to keep people healthy.”⁹ In a pandemic when decisions must be made (to paraphrase Mr. Spock) “for the good of the many” this creates an intrinsic ethical tension for the health care practitioner whose ethos is to advocate for his or her patient.

The second difference is that in order to accomplish these communitarian aims, the law and political and cultural factors have much more influence in medical decision making than within the ideal dyad of a health care practitioner and the patient engaged in shared decision making about the patient’s health. This is nowhere more evident than in the President’s recent declaration of a public health emergency. “The Federal Government, along with State and Local governments, has taken preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected. . .”¹⁰ Federal and state governments can exercise wide-ranging powers that can restrict individual liberties in ways that would never be legal or ethically justifiable in the course of routine clinical care.

The third difference relates to the ethical principles that guide public health care decision making in comparison with those of clinical ethics. The primacy of autonomy in modern American medical ethics must for the health of the public sometimes yield to the overarching goal of preventing serious harm to the public and mitigating the transmission of the infection. Values such as nonmaleficence and justice become even more important than individual self-determination especially as the pandemic worsens and the demand for scarce ventilators and other life-saving resources outstrips the supply.¹¹

The fourth difference is that in nonemergent care, whether in the clinic or the hospital, the health care provider bears the primary responsibility for making decisions. Practitioners bring their knowledge and experience and patients their values and preferences to arrive at a mutually acceptable treatment plan. In stark contrast the profound and tragic life and death decisions made in a pandemic should not be left to the individual clinician who to the degree possible should remain faithful to the individual patient’s interests to preserve his or her professional integrity. Instead, decisions should be in the hands of highly trained and respected committees with diverse membership and expertise in accordance with evidence-based scientific protocols that are in response to changing pandemic conditions and the best available evidence. This process ensures that the values of consistency, transparency, and fairness which take center place in a public health emergency are the moral basis of decisions rather than ad hoc decisions that risk bias and inequity especially regarding vulnerable populations.¹¹

There is one characteristic of medical decision making that does not change whether in a routine checkup or resource allocation in an intensive care unit in a pandemic: the need to respect individual human dignity and to show compassion for the suffering of those who will not survive. In the Star Trek episode “Wrath of Khan,” Spock sacrificed himself to save his ship, his comrades, and his friends who mourned his death and honored his life.

I am writing this editorial on a beautiful day in the high desert of the Southwest: a bright blue clear sky such as you see only in the mountain air, a sun warm and comforting, and birds singing as if they had not a care in the world. Spring has come early as if to dramatize the cognitive dissonance between this idyllic scene and a seemingly invincible winter of disease and death that has gripped the globe.

For now, my editorials will focus on the most threatening infectious disease outbreak since, perhaps, 1918. I have been teaching public health and pandemic ethics to health care professionals and trainees for more than a decade. I always tell the medical students, “it is not if but when” the next viral wave overwhelms society. It is human nature to disbelieve this inevitability and to ignore, dismiss, or even attack the infectious disease experts and science journalists who, like Cassandra, warn us of the return of the plague.¹

In the early 2000s, virologists were concerned that Avian influenza with a mortality rate of > 60% would mutate into a virus capable of jumping the species barrier with sustained human transmission; however, that threat has not materialized (yet).² Instead, in 2009 the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck viciously. The always capricious genetic mutations of viral combinations outwitted vaccine manufacturers, offering little protection, resulting in an estimated 12,469 deaths, tragically many of them children, young, and middle-aged people.³ In between, there were periodic eruptions of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa. In 2014, 11 Americans who had either served as health care workers or traveled in the region were treated in the US.⁴

This much abridged survey of recent pandemics reminds us of how wrong were those who returning victorious from World War II with newly developed antibiotics and at the zenith of American military medicine argued that we would also beat infectious disease.⁵ As my Army pediatrician father would tell me, “the bugs will always be smarter than the drugs.” For now, COVID-19 is outwitting those in science and medicine who are engaged in a desperate race to discover a vaccine or a drug to “stop the virus in its tracks” as the media is so fond of saying.⁶ Irresponsible news outlets are giving a panicked citizenry false hope. Experts recently testified before the US House of Representatives that according to the most optimistic estimates, a vaccine is a year away.⁷ Yet information is a double-edged sword, as the Internet also is able to communicate accurate lifesaving information from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments with unprecedented speed and reach.

The best chance for civilization to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic is, as it has been so many times before, through precautionary measures and preventive public health efforts. There is a reason that in 2007, readers of the prestigious British Journal of Medicine ranked public health interventions as the most important advances in medical history.⁸

The initial installment of this pandemic series will offer a primer in public health ethics. Just as almost everything else in daily life has rapidly and radically changed, from cancelled church services to school closures, so too public health ethics is significantly different in many important aspects from the clinical health ethics we are accustomed to in our practice.

The first difference is focus. In clinical health ethics the focus of the individual health care practitioner is the individual patient, but public health ethics focuses on “what we as a society do to keep people healthy.”⁹ In a pandemic when decisions must be made (to paraphrase Mr. Spock) “for the good of the many” this creates an intrinsic ethical tension for the health care practitioner whose ethos is to advocate for his or her patient.

The second difference is that in order to accomplish these communitarian aims, the law and political and cultural factors have much more influence in medical decision making than within the ideal dyad of a health care practitioner and the patient engaged in shared decision making about the patient’s health. This is nowhere more evident than in the President’s recent declaration of a public health emergency. “The Federal Government, along with State and Local governments, has taken preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected. . .”¹⁰ Federal and state governments can exercise wide-ranging powers that can restrict individual liberties in ways that would never be legal or ethically justifiable in the course of routine clinical care.

The third difference relates to the ethical principles that guide public health care decision making in comparison with those of clinical ethics. The primacy of autonomy in modern American medical ethics must for the health of the public sometimes yield to the overarching goal of preventing serious harm to the public and mitigating the transmission of the infection. Values such as nonmaleficence and justice become even more important than individual self-determination especially as the pandemic worsens and the demand for scarce ventilators and other life-saving resources outstrips the supply.¹¹

The fourth difference is that in nonemergent care, whether in the clinic or the hospital, the health care provider bears the primary responsibility for making decisions. Practitioners bring their knowledge and experience and patients their values and preferences to arrive at a mutually acceptable treatment plan. In stark contrast the profound and tragic life and death decisions made in a pandemic should not be left to the individual clinician who to the degree possible should remain faithful to the individual patient’s interests to preserve his or her professional integrity. Instead, decisions should be in the hands of highly trained and respected committees with diverse membership and expertise in accordance with evidence-based scientific protocols that are in response to changing pandemic conditions and the best available evidence. This process ensures that the values of consistency, transparency, and fairness which take center place in a public health emergency are the moral basis of decisions rather than ad hoc decisions that risk bias and inequity especially regarding vulnerable populations.¹¹

There is one characteristic of medical decision making that does not change whether in a routine checkup or resource allocation in an intensive care unit in a pandemic: the need to respect individual human dignity and to show compassion for the suffering of those who will not survive. In the Star Trek episode “Wrath of Khan,” Spock sacrificed himself to save his ship, his comrades, and his friends who mourned his death and honored his life.

I am writing this editorial on a beautiful day in the high desert of the Southwest: a bright blue clear sky such as you see only in the mountain air, a sun warm and comforting, and birds singing as if they had not a care in the world. Spring has come early as if to dramatize the cognitive dissonance between this idyllic scene and a seemingly invincible winter of disease and death that has gripped the globe.

For now, my editorials will focus on the most threatening infectious disease outbreak since, perhaps, 1918. I have been teaching public health and pandemic ethics to health care professionals and trainees for more than a decade. I always tell the medical students, “it is not if but when” the next viral wave overwhelms society. It is human nature to disbelieve this inevitability and to ignore, dismiss, or even attack the infectious disease experts and science journalists who, like Cassandra, warn us of the return of the plague.¹

In the early 2000s, virologists were concerned that Avian influenza with a mortality rate of > 60% would mutate into a virus capable of jumping the species barrier with sustained human transmission; however, that threat has not materialized (yet).² Instead, in 2009 the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck viciously. The always capricious genetic mutations of viral combinations outwitted vaccine manufacturers, offering little protection, resulting in an estimated 12,469 deaths, tragically many of them children, young, and middle-aged people.³ In between, there were periodic eruptions of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa. In 2014, 11 Americans who had either served as health care workers or traveled in the region were treated in the US.⁴

This much abridged survey of recent pandemics reminds us of how wrong were those who returning victorious from World War II with newly developed antibiotics and at the zenith of American military medicine argued that we would also beat infectious disease.⁵ As my Army pediatrician father would tell me, “the bugs will always be smarter than the drugs.” For now, COVID-19 is outwitting those in science and medicine who are engaged in a desperate race to discover a vaccine or a drug to “stop the virus in its tracks” as the media is so fond of saying.⁶ Irresponsible news outlets are giving a panicked citizenry false hope. Experts recently testified before the US House of Representatives that according to the most optimistic estimates, a vaccine is a year away.⁷ Yet information is a double-edged sword, as the Internet also is able to communicate accurate lifesaving information from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments with unprecedented speed and reach.

The best chance for civilization to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic is, as it has been so many times before, through precautionary measures and preventive public health efforts. There is a reason that in 2007, readers of the prestigious British Journal of Medicine ranked public health interventions as the most important advances in medical history.⁸

The initial installment of this pandemic series will offer a primer in public health ethics. Just as almost everything else in daily life has rapidly and radically changed, from cancelled church services to school closures, so too public health ethics is significantly different in many important aspects from the clinical health ethics we are accustomed to in our practice.

The first difference is focus. In clinical health ethics the focus of the individual health care practitioner is the individual patient, but public health ethics focuses on “what we as a society do to keep people healthy.”⁹ In a pandemic when decisions must be made (to paraphrase Mr. Spock) “for the good of the many” this creates an intrinsic ethical tension for the health care practitioner whose ethos is to advocate for his or her patient.

The second difference is that in order to accomplish these communitarian aims, the law and political and cultural factors have much more influence in medical decision making than within the ideal dyad of a health care practitioner and the patient engaged in shared decision making about the patient’s health. This is nowhere more evident than in the President’s recent declaration of a public health emergency. “The Federal Government, along with State and Local governments, has taken preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected. . .”¹⁰ Federal and state governments can exercise wide-ranging powers that can restrict individual liberties in ways that would never be legal or ethically justifiable in the course of routine clinical care.

The third difference relates to the ethical principles that guide public health care decision making in comparison with those of clinical ethics. The primacy of autonomy in modern American medical ethics must for the health of the public sometimes yield to the overarching goal of preventing serious harm to the public and mitigating the transmission of the infection. Values such as nonmaleficence and justice become even more important than individual self-determination especially as the pandemic worsens and the demand for scarce ventilators and other life-saving resources outstrips the supply.¹¹

The fourth difference is that in nonemergent care, whether in the clinic or the hospital, the health care provider bears the primary responsibility for making decisions. Practitioners bring their knowledge and experience and patients their values and preferences to arrive at a mutually acceptable treatment plan. In stark contrast the profound and tragic life and death decisions made in a pandemic should not be left to the individual clinician who to the degree possible should remain faithful to the individual patient’s interests to preserve his or her professional integrity. Instead, decisions should be in the hands of highly trained and respected committees with diverse membership and expertise in accordance with evidence-based scientific protocols that are in response to changing pandemic conditions and the best available evidence. This process ensures that the values of consistency, transparency, and fairness which take center place in a public health emergency are the moral basis of decisions rather than ad hoc decisions that risk bias and inequity especially regarding vulnerable populations.¹¹

There is one characteristic of medical decision making that does not change whether in a routine checkup or resource allocation in an intensive care unit in a pandemic: the need to respect individual human dignity and to show compassion for the suffering of those who will not survive. In the Star Trek episode “Wrath of Khan,” Spock sacrificed himself to save his ship, his comrades, and his friends who mourned his death and honored his life.

New information from the US State Department indicates that it is lifting the suspension on visas for foreign-trained medical professionals, a move that has promise for boosting the US physician workforce battling COVID-19.

The move may also help physicians extend their visas.

The communication late last week follows a March 18 announcement that, because of COVID-19, the United States was suspending routine processing of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, including the J and H visas, at embassies and consulates worldwide.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) appealed to the State Department to lift the suspension, noting that 4222 graduates of medical schools outside the United States who had matched into residencies in the United States and were ready to start on July 1 would not get the visas most of them need to begin training.

The State Department lifted the suspensions and issued this update:

“We encourage medical professionals with an approved US non-immigrant or immigrant visa petition (I-129, I-140, or similar) or a certificate of eligibility in an approved exchange visitor program (DS-2019), particularly those working to treat or mitigate the effects of COVID-19, to review the website of their nearest embassy or consulate for procedures to request a visa appointment.”

The State Department also issued guidance for foreign medical professionals already in the United States:

“J-1 Alien Physicians (medical residents) may consult with their program sponsor, ECFMG, to extend their programs in the United States. Generally, a J-1 program for a foreign medical resident can be extended one year at a time for up to seven years.

“Note that the expiration date on a US visa does not determine how long one can be in the United States. The way to confirm one’s required departure date is here : https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home.

“Those who need to extend their stay or adjust their visa status  must apply with USCIS  (US Citizenship and Immigration Services).”

Complications Still Exist

ECFMG’s CEO, William W. Pinsky, MD, told Medscape Medical News that, although they welcomed the news from the State Department, there are still unanswered questions.

ECFMG explained that J-1 visas are currently granted only 30 days before the residency program begins.

However, travel to the United States may still be difficult in June, Pinsky said, and physicians may need to be quarantined for 2 weeks upon arrival.

“We’re still having some discussion with the Department of State on whether that regulation could be relaxed and they could come in earlier,” he said.

He cautioned that even after a J-1 visa application is made, the physician’s home country has to endorse the application.

Pinsky said he did not yet know whether that would be a problem.

He also said that, in response to New York’s plea for more healthcare workers, ECFMG is offering to verify education and licensing credentials for physicians educated outside the United States at no cost.

Individual hospitals and regulatory authorities can decide whether there may be roles in some capacity for physicians who have graduated from medical school, even if they have not completed residency or have not been licensed, he said.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New information from the US State Department indicates that it is lifting the suspension on visas for foreign-trained medical professionals, a move that has promise for boosting the US physician workforce battling COVID-19.

The move may also help physicians extend their visas.

The communication late last week follows a March 18 announcement that, because of COVID-19, the United States was suspending routine processing of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, including the J and H visas, at embassies and consulates worldwide.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) appealed to the State Department to lift the suspension, noting that 4222 graduates of medical schools outside the United States who had matched into residencies in the United States and were ready to start on July 1 would not get the visas most of them need to begin training.

The State Department lifted the suspensions and issued this update:

“We encourage medical professionals with an approved US non-immigrant or immigrant visa petition (I-129, I-140, or similar) or a certificate of eligibility in an approved exchange visitor program (DS-2019), particularly those working to treat or mitigate the effects of COVID-19, to review the website of their nearest embassy or consulate for procedures to request a visa appointment.”

The State Department also issued guidance for foreign medical professionals already in the United States:

“J-1 Alien Physicians (medical residents) may consult with their program sponsor, ECFMG, to extend their programs in the United States. Generally, a J-1 program for a foreign medical resident can be extended one year at a time for up to seven years.

“Note that the expiration date on a US visa does not determine how long one can be in the United States. The way to confirm one’s required departure date is here : https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home.

“Those who need to extend their stay or adjust their visa status  must apply with USCIS  (US Citizenship and Immigration Services).”

Complications Still Exist

ECFMG’s CEO, William W. Pinsky, MD, told Medscape Medical News that, although they welcomed the news from the State Department, there are still unanswered questions.

ECFMG explained that J-1 visas are currently granted only 30 days before the residency program begins.

However, travel to the United States may still be difficult in June, Pinsky said, and physicians may need to be quarantined for 2 weeks upon arrival.

“We’re still having some discussion with the Department of State on whether that regulation could be relaxed and they could come in earlier,” he said.

He cautioned that even after a J-1 visa application is made, the physician’s home country has to endorse the application.

Pinsky said he did not yet know whether that would be a problem.

He also said that, in response to New York’s plea for more healthcare workers, ECFMG is offering to verify education and licensing credentials for physicians educated outside the United States at no cost.

Individual hospitals and regulatory authorities can decide whether there may be roles in some capacity for physicians who have graduated from medical school, even if they have not completed residency or have not been licensed, he said.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New information from the US State Department indicates that it is lifting the suspension on visas for foreign-trained medical professionals, a move that has promise for boosting the US physician workforce battling COVID-19.

The move may also help physicians extend their visas.

The communication late last week follows a March 18 announcement that, because of COVID-19, the United States was suspending routine processing of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, including the J and H visas, at embassies and consulates worldwide.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) appealed to the State Department to lift the suspension, noting that 4222 graduates of medical schools outside the United States who had matched into residencies in the United States and were ready to start on July 1 would not get the visas most of them need to begin training.

The State Department lifted the suspensions and issued this update:

“We encourage medical professionals with an approved US non-immigrant or immigrant visa petition (I-129, I-140, or similar) or a certificate of eligibility in an approved exchange visitor program (DS-2019), particularly those working to treat or mitigate the effects of COVID-19, to review the website of their nearest embassy or consulate for procedures to request a visa appointment.”

The State Department also issued guidance for foreign medical professionals already in the United States:

“J-1 Alien Physicians (medical residents) may consult with their program sponsor, ECFMG, to extend their programs in the United States. Generally, a J-1 program for a foreign medical resident can be extended one year at a time for up to seven years.

“Note that the expiration date on a US visa does not determine how long one can be in the United States. The way to confirm one’s required departure date is here : https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home.

“Those who need to extend their stay or adjust their visa status  must apply with USCIS  (US Citizenship and Immigration Services).”

Complications Still Exist

ECFMG’s CEO, William W. Pinsky, MD, told Medscape Medical News that, although they welcomed the news from the State Department, there are still unanswered questions.

ECFMG explained that J-1 visas are currently granted only 30 days before the residency program begins.

However, travel to the United States may still be difficult in June, Pinsky said, and physicians may need to be quarantined for 2 weeks upon arrival.

“We’re still having some discussion with the Department of State on whether that regulation could be relaxed and they could come in earlier,” he said.

He cautioned that even after a J-1 visa application is made, the physician’s home country has to endorse the application.

Pinsky said he did not yet know whether that would be a problem.

He also said that, in response to New York’s plea for more healthcare workers, ECFMG is offering to verify education and licensing credentials for physicians educated outside the United States at no cost.

Individual hospitals and regulatory authorities can decide whether there may be roles in some capacity for physicians who have graduated from medical school, even if they have not completed residency or have not been licensed, he said.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

For patients with lupus nephritis, kidney response improves when voclosporin (Aurinia Pharmaceuticals) is added to mycophenolate and low-dose corticosteroids, results from the phase 3 AURORA trial show.
 

The calcineurin inhibitor is the first novel agent to demonstrate effectiveness in the treatment of people with lupus nephritis, a disease that can lead to irreversible kidney damage, kidney failure, and even death.

“We believe that voclosporin – as an add-on therapy – will help more patients achieve remission,” said Keisha Gibson, MD, MPH, chief of pediatric nephrology at the UNC Kidney Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, who led the study and presented the findings during a virtual session at the National Kidney Foundation 2020 Spring Clinical Meetings.

The burden that lupus places on patients and the health system is high, she reported. Patients with lupus and uncontrolled kidney disease frequently have complications that require hospitalization, can suffer complete or partial loss of income, and can become temporarily disabled. And up to 50% of lupus patients will develop lupus nephritis.

“When we are lucky and see early treatment responses in our patients, we know that their long-term outcomes, measured by proteinuria reduction, are quite good,” said Gibson. “Unfortunately, in 10% to 30% of patients, despite standard-of-care therapies, we see progression to end-stage kidney disease within 15 years of diagnosis. This confers a huge cost to overall health and quality of life, and is an excess burden to the healthcare system.

“It is clear that one of the biggest risk factors for these patients who have kidney disease that is progressing to kidney failure is an inability to control the inflammation and chronic damage from uncontrolled disease,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“While there have certainly been a few advances in the care of patients with lupus disease, I believe that this therapy may help move the needle, specifically for patients with kidney involvement from their lupus disease,” she added.

Renal Response Much Higher With Voclosporin

The typical standard of care for patients with active lupus and kidney disease is either a combination of cyclophosphamide plus steroids or a combination of mycophenolate mofetil plus steroids.

The global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial compared the effectiveness and safety of twice-daily oral voclosporin 23.7 mg with placebo. All 357 study participants also received mycophenolate 2 g daily and rapidly tapered low-dose oral corticosteroids.

At 1 year, the renal response rate was higher in the voclosporin group than in the placebo group (40.8% vs 22.5%; odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).

“AURORA patients achieved low levels of protein twice as quickly as patients on standard of care,” the researchers write in their abstract. Median time to the achievement of a urine protein to creatinine ratio below 0.5 mg/mg was significantly and clinically better with voclosporin than with placebo (169 vs 372 days; log rank P < .001).

And voclosporin was well tolerated. The percentage of serious adverse events was similar in the voclosporin and placebo groups (20.8% vs 21.3%), with infection being the most common serious event (10.1% vs 11.2%).

In the voclosporin group, there were no significant differences between baseline and 1 year estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), blood pressure, lipid levels, or sugar levels.

And there were fewer deaths in the voclosporin group than in the placebo group (1 vs 5).

Benefits were seen in all subgroups, including age, sex, race, biopsy class, geographic region of origin, and mycophenolate exposure at screening, Gibson reported.

Promise of a New Treatment

The promise of a new treatment is exciting for the field, said Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer of the National Kidney Foundation.

However, it’s important to note that “this study is applicable only to patients with lupus nephritis with preserved kidney function,” he added.

An “eGFR less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m² was implied as an exclusion criteria, so I would say it certainly doesn’t apply to patients with impaired kidney function,” he said, pointing out that this will be clearer when the final data are published.

The study cohort was heterogeneous; 86% of participants had class 3 or 4 biopsy findings and 14% had class 5, so the superiority of voclosporin is convincing, he said.

“We look forward to full publication and more details,” he told Medscape Medical News. “They do have an extension study, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.”

Voclosporin was granted Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016, and these positive phase 3 results mean that a New Drug Application will likely be filed in the next few months. If approved, the drug could be on the market by 2021, according to a press release from Aurinia.

Nephrologists are familiar with calcineurin inhibitors, so it will be interesting to see, given the success of this trial, if voclosporin has a potential role in other kidney diseases, “such as minimal change disease,” said Vassalotti.

He added that there are concerns, unrelated to the AURORA trial, about the supply of hydroxychloroquine, which is also used for the treatment of lupus nephritis. “An overarching concern is that the supply will be limited now that the drug is being studied and used as prophylaxis after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and as a treatment for COVID-19, creating challenges for patients with lupus nephritis trying to obtain their needed medication,” he said.

Gibson reports no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors work for the drugmaker, Aurinia. Vassalotti reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with lupus nephritis, kidney response improves when voclosporin (Aurinia Pharmaceuticals) is added to mycophenolate and low-dose corticosteroids, results from the phase 3 AURORA trial show.
 

The calcineurin inhibitor is the first novel agent to demonstrate effectiveness in the treatment of people with lupus nephritis, a disease that can lead to irreversible kidney damage, kidney failure, and even death.

“We believe that voclosporin – as an add-on therapy – will help more patients achieve remission,” said Keisha Gibson, MD, MPH, chief of pediatric nephrology at the UNC Kidney Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, who led the study and presented the findings during a virtual session at the National Kidney Foundation 2020 Spring Clinical Meetings.

The burden that lupus places on patients and the health system is high, she reported. Patients with lupus and uncontrolled kidney disease frequently have complications that require hospitalization, can suffer complete or partial loss of income, and can become temporarily disabled. And up to 50% of lupus patients will develop lupus nephritis.

“When we are lucky and see early treatment responses in our patients, we know that their long-term outcomes, measured by proteinuria reduction, are quite good,” said Gibson. “Unfortunately, in 10% to 30% of patients, despite standard-of-care therapies, we see progression to end-stage kidney disease within 15 years of diagnosis. This confers a huge cost to overall health and quality of life, and is an excess burden to the healthcare system.

“It is clear that one of the biggest risk factors for these patients who have kidney disease that is progressing to kidney failure is an inability to control the inflammation and chronic damage from uncontrolled disease,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“While there have certainly been a few advances in the care of patients with lupus disease, I believe that this therapy may help move the needle, specifically for patients with kidney involvement from their lupus disease,” she added.

Renal Response Much Higher With Voclosporin

The typical standard of care for patients with active lupus and kidney disease is either a combination of cyclophosphamide plus steroids or a combination of mycophenolate mofetil plus steroids.

The global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial compared the effectiveness and safety of twice-daily oral voclosporin 23.7 mg with placebo. All 357 study participants also received mycophenolate 2 g daily and rapidly tapered low-dose oral corticosteroids.

At 1 year, the renal response rate was higher in the voclosporin group than in the placebo group (40.8% vs 22.5%; odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).

“AURORA patients achieved low levels of protein twice as quickly as patients on standard of care,” the researchers write in their abstract. Median time to the achievement of a urine protein to creatinine ratio below 0.5 mg/mg was significantly and clinically better with voclosporin than with placebo (169 vs 372 days; log rank P < .001).

And voclosporin was well tolerated. The percentage of serious adverse events was similar in the voclosporin and placebo groups (20.8% vs 21.3%), with infection being the most common serious event (10.1% vs 11.2%).

In the voclosporin group, there were no significant differences between baseline and 1 year estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), blood pressure, lipid levels, or sugar levels.

And there were fewer deaths in the voclosporin group than in the placebo group (1 vs 5).

Benefits were seen in all subgroups, including age, sex, race, biopsy class, geographic region of origin, and mycophenolate exposure at screening, Gibson reported.

Promise of a New Treatment

The promise of a new treatment is exciting for the field, said Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer of the National Kidney Foundation.

However, it’s important to note that “this study is applicable only to patients with lupus nephritis with preserved kidney function,” he added.

An “eGFR less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m² was implied as an exclusion criteria, so I would say it certainly doesn’t apply to patients with impaired kidney function,” he said, pointing out that this will be clearer when the final data are published.

The study cohort was heterogeneous; 86% of participants had class 3 or 4 biopsy findings and 14% had class 5, so the superiority of voclosporin is convincing, he said.

“We look forward to full publication and more details,” he told Medscape Medical News. “They do have an extension study, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.”

Voclosporin was granted Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016, and these positive phase 3 results mean that a New Drug Application will likely be filed in the next few months. If approved, the drug could be on the market by 2021, according to a press release from Aurinia.

Nephrologists are familiar with calcineurin inhibitors, so it will be interesting to see, given the success of this trial, if voclosporin has a potential role in other kidney diseases, “such as minimal change disease,” said Vassalotti.

He added that there are concerns, unrelated to the AURORA trial, about the supply of hydroxychloroquine, which is also used for the treatment of lupus nephritis. “An overarching concern is that the supply will be limited now that the drug is being studied and used as prophylaxis after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and as a treatment for COVID-19, creating challenges for patients with lupus nephritis trying to obtain their needed medication,” he said.

Gibson reports no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors work for the drugmaker, Aurinia. Vassalotti reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with lupus nephritis, kidney response improves when voclosporin (Aurinia Pharmaceuticals) is added to mycophenolate and low-dose corticosteroids, results from the phase 3 AURORA trial show.
 

The calcineurin inhibitor is the first novel agent to demonstrate effectiveness in the treatment of people with lupus nephritis, a disease that can lead to irreversible kidney damage, kidney failure, and even death.

“We believe that voclosporin – as an add-on therapy – will help more patients achieve remission,” said Keisha Gibson, MD, MPH, chief of pediatric nephrology at the UNC Kidney Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, who led the study and presented the findings during a virtual session at the National Kidney Foundation 2020 Spring Clinical Meetings.

The burden that lupus places on patients and the health system is high, she reported. Patients with lupus and uncontrolled kidney disease frequently have complications that require hospitalization, can suffer complete or partial loss of income, and can become temporarily disabled. And up to 50% of lupus patients will develop lupus nephritis.

“When we are lucky and see early treatment responses in our patients, we know that their long-term outcomes, measured by proteinuria reduction, are quite good,” said Gibson. “Unfortunately, in 10% to 30% of patients, despite standard-of-care therapies, we see progression to end-stage kidney disease within 15 years of diagnosis. This confers a huge cost to overall health and quality of life, and is an excess burden to the healthcare system.

“It is clear that one of the biggest risk factors for these patients who have kidney disease that is progressing to kidney failure is an inability to control the inflammation and chronic damage from uncontrolled disease,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“While there have certainly been a few advances in the care of patients with lupus disease, I believe that this therapy may help move the needle, specifically for patients with kidney involvement from their lupus disease,” she added.

Renal Response Much Higher With Voclosporin

The typical standard of care for patients with active lupus and kidney disease is either a combination of cyclophosphamide plus steroids or a combination of mycophenolate mofetil plus steroids.

The global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial compared the effectiveness and safety of twice-daily oral voclosporin 23.7 mg with placebo. All 357 study participants also received mycophenolate 2 g daily and rapidly tapered low-dose oral corticosteroids.

At 1 year, the renal response rate was higher in the voclosporin group than in the placebo group (40.8% vs 22.5%; odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).

“AURORA patients achieved low levels of protein twice as quickly as patients on standard of care,” the researchers write in their abstract. Median time to the achievement of a urine protein to creatinine ratio below 0.5 mg/mg was significantly and clinically better with voclosporin than with placebo (169 vs 372 days; log rank P < .001).

And voclosporin was well tolerated. The percentage of serious adverse events was similar in the voclosporin and placebo groups (20.8% vs 21.3%), with infection being the most common serious event (10.1% vs 11.2%).

In the voclosporin group, there were no significant differences between baseline and 1 year estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), blood pressure, lipid levels, or sugar levels.

And there were fewer deaths in the voclosporin group than in the placebo group (1 vs 5).

Benefits were seen in all subgroups, including age, sex, race, biopsy class, geographic region of origin, and mycophenolate exposure at screening, Gibson reported.

Promise of a New Treatment

The promise of a new treatment is exciting for the field, said Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer of the National Kidney Foundation.

However, it’s important to note that “this study is applicable only to patients with lupus nephritis with preserved kidney function,” he added.

An “eGFR less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m² was implied as an exclusion criteria, so I would say it certainly doesn’t apply to patients with impaired kidney function,” he said, pointing out that this will be clearer when the final data are published.

The study cohort was heterogeneous; 86% of participants had class 3 or 4 biopsy findings and 14% had class 5, so the superiority of voclosporin is convincing, he said.

“We look forward to full publication and more details,” he told Medscape Medical News. “They do have an extension study, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.”

Voclosporin was granted Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016, and these positive phase 3 results mean that a New Drug Application will likely be filed in the next few months. If approved, the drug could be on the market by 2021, according to a press release from Aurinia.

Nephrologists are familiar with calcineurin inhibitors, so it will be interesting to see, given the success of this trial, if voclosporin has a potential role in other kidney diseases, “such as minimal change disease,” said Vassalotti.

He added that there are concerns, unrelated to the AURORA trial, about the supply of hydroxychloroquine, which is also used for the treatment of lupus nephritis. “An overarching concern is that the supply will be limited now that the drug is being studied and used as prophylaxis after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and as a treatment for COVID-19, creating challenges for patients with lupus nephritis trying to obtain their needed medication,” he said.

Gibson reports no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors work for the drugmaker, Aurinia. Vassalotti reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

agallegos@mdedge.com