Ob.Gyn. News

The Food and Drug Administration has announced a new approved indication for olaparib (Lynparza) in adults with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.

Olaparib is now FDA-approved for use in combination with bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and whose cancer is homologous recombination deficiency positive, as defined by a deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA mutation and/or genomic instability.

The FDA also approved the Myriad myChoice CDx test as a companion diagnostic for olaparib.

Trial results

The efficacy of olaparib and the myChoice CDx test were assessed in patients in the phase 3 PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644). The study enrolled patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab.

Patients were stratified by first-line treatment outcome and BRCA mutation status, as determined by prospective local testing. All available clinical samples were retrospectively tested with the Myriad myChoice CDx test.

The patients were randomized to receive olaparib at 300 mg orally twice daily in combination with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n = 537) or placebo plus bevacizumab (n = 269). Patients continued bevacizumab in the maintenance setting and started olaparib 3-9 weeks after their last chemotherapy dose. Olaparib could be continued for up to 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median progression-free survival among the 387 patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumors was 37.2 months in the olaparib arm and 17.7 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.33), according to the prescribing information for olaparib.

Serious adverse events occurred in 31% of patients in the olaparib arm. The most common were hypertension (19%) and anemia (17%).

Dose interruptions from adverse events occurred in 54% of patients in the olaparib arm, and dose reductions from adverse events occurred in 41%.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has announced a new approved indication for olaparib (Lynparza) in adults with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.

Olaparib is now FDA-approved for use in combination with bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and whose cancer is homologous recombination deficiency positive, as defined by a deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA mutation and/or genomic instability.

The FDA also approved the Myriad myChoice CDx test as a companion diagnostic for olaparib.

Trial results

The efficacy of olaparib and the myChoice CDx test were assessed in patients in the phase 3 PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644). The study enrolled patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab.

Patients were stratified by first-line treatment outcome and BRCA mutation status, as determined by prospective local testing. All available clinical samples were retrospectively tested with the Myriad myChoice CDx test.

The patients were randomized to receive olaparib at 300 mg orally twice daily in combination with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n = 537) or placebo plus bevacizumab (n = 269). Patients continued bevacizumab in the maintenance setting and started olaparib 3-9 weeks after their last chemotherapy dose. Olaparib could be continued for up to 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median progression-free survival among the 387 patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumors was 37.2 months in the olaparib arm and 17.7 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.33), according to the prescribing information for olaparib.

Serious adverse events occurred in 31% of patients in the olaparib arm. The most common were hypertension (19%) and anemia (17%).

Dose interruptions from adverse events occurred in 54% of patients in the olaparib arm, and dose reductions from adverse events occurred in 41%.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has announced a new approved indication for olaparib (Lynparza) in adults with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.

Olaparib is now FDA-approved for use in combination with bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and whose cancer is homologous recombination deficiency positive, as defined by a deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA mutation and/or genomic instability.

The FDA also approved the Myriad myChoice CDx test as a companion diagnostic for olaparib.

Trial results

The efficacy of olaparib and the myChoice CDx test were assessed in patients in the phase 3 PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644). The study enrolled patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab.

Patients were stratified by first-line treatment outcome and BRCA mutation status, as determined by prospective local testing. All available clinical samples were retrospectively tested with the Myriad myChoice CDx test.

The patients were randomized to receive olaparib at 300 mg orally twice daily in combination with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n = 537) or placebo plus bevacizumab (n = 269). Patients continued bevacizumab in the maintenance setting and started olaparib 3-9 weeks after their last chemotherapy dose. Olaparib could be continued for up to 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median progression-free survival among the 387 patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumors was 37.2 months in the olaparib arm and 17.7 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.33), according to the prescribing information for olaparib.

Serious adverse events occurred in 31% of patients in the olaparib arm. The most common were hypertension (19%) and anemia (17%).

Dose interruptions from adverse events occurred in 54% of patients in the olaparib arm, and dose reductions from adverse events occurred in 41%.

jensmith@mdedge.com

U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

jsmith/iStockphoto

During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.

Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.

“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”

The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.

The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.

During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.

Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.

“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

jsmith/iStockphoto

During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.

Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.

“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”

The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.

The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.

During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.

Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.

“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

jsmith/iStockphoto

During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.

Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.

“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”

The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.

The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.

During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.

Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.

“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

A triple-antiviral therapy regimen of interferon-beta1, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin shortened median time to COVID-19 viral negativity by 5 days in a small trial from Hong Kong.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

In an open-label, randomized phase 2 trial in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 infections, the median time to viral negativity by nasopharyngeal swab was 7 days for 86 patients assigned to receive a 14-day course of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg every 12 hours, ribavirin 400 mg every 12 hours, and three doses of 8 million international units of interferon beta-1b on alternate days, compared with a median time to negativity of 12 days for patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir alone (P = .0010), wrote Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung, MD, from Gleaneagles Hospital in Hong Kong, and colleagues.

“Triple-antiviral therapy with interferon beta-1b, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin were safe and superior to lopinavir/ritonavir alone in shortening virus shedding, alleviating symptoms, and facilitating discharge of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19,” they wrote in a study published online in The Lancet.

Patients who received the combination also had significantly shorter time to complete alleviation of symptoms as assessed by a National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2, a system for detecting clinical deterioration in patients with acute illnesses) score of 0 (4 vs. 8 days, respectively; hazard ratio 3.92, P < .0001), and to a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 0 (3 vs. 8 days, HR 1.89, P = .041).

The median hospital stay was 9 days for patients treated with the combination, compared with 14.5 days for controls (HR 2.72, P = .016).

In most patients treated with the combination, SARS-CoV-2 viral load was effectively suppressed in all clinical specimens, including nasopharyngeal swabs, throat and posterior oropharyngeal saliva, and stool.

In addition, serum levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6) – an inflammatory cytokine implicated in the cytokine storm frequently seen in patients with severe COVID-19 infections – were significantly lower on treatment days 2, 6, and 8 in patients treated with the combination, compared with those treated with lopinavir/ritonavir alone.

“Our trial demonstrates that early treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 with a triple combination of antiviral drugs may rapidly suppress the amount of virus in a patient’s body, relieve symptoms, and reduce the risk to health care workers by reducing the duration and quantity of viral shedding (when the virus is detectable and potentially transmissible). Furthermore, the treatment combination appeared safe and well tolerated by patients,” said lead investigator Professor Kwok-Yung Yuen from the University of Hong Kong, in a statement.

“Despite these encouraging findings,” he continued, “we must confirm in larger phase 3 trials that interferon beta-1b alone or in combination with other drugs is effective in patients with more severe illness (in whom the virus has had more time to replicate).”

Plausible rationale

Benjamin Medoff, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the biologic rationale for the combination is plausible.

“I think this is a promising study that suggests that a regimen of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin can shorten the duration of infection and improve symptoms in COVID-19 patients especially if started early in disease, in less than 7 days of symptom onset,” he said in reply to a request for expert analysis.

“The open-label nature and small size of the study limits the broad use of the regimen as noted by the authors, and it’s important to emphasize that the subjects enrolled did not have very severe disease (not in the ICU). However, the study does suggest that a larger truly randomized study is warranted,” he said.

AIDS drugs repurposed

Lopinavir/ritonavir is commonly used to treat HIV/AIDS throughout the world, and the investigators had previously reported that the antiviral agents combined with ribavirin reduced deaths and the need for intensive ventilator support among patients with SARS-CoV, the betacoronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and antivirals have shown in vitro activity against both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, the closely related pathogen that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome.

“ However the viral load of SARS and MERS peaks at around day 7-10 after symptom onset, whereas the viral load of COVID-19 peaks at the time of presentation, similar to influenza. Experience from the treatment of patients with influenza who are admitted to hospital suggested that a combination of multiple antiviral drugs is more effective than single-drug treatments in this setting of patients with a high viral load at presentation,” the investigators wrote.

To test this, they enrolled adults patients admitted to one of six Hong Kong Hospitals for virologically confirmed COVID-19 infections from Feb. 10 through March 20, 2020.

A total of 86 patients were randomly assigned to the combination and 41 to lopinavir/ritonavir alone as controls, at doses described above.

Patients who entered the trial within less than 7 days of symptom onset received the triple combination, with interferon dosing adjusted according to the day that treatment started. Patients recruited 1 or 2 days after symptom onset received three doses of interferon, patients started on day 3 or 4 received two doses, and those started on days 5 or 6 received one interferon dose. Patients recruited 7 days or later from symptom onset did not receive interferon beta-1b because of its proinflammatory effects.

In post-hoc analysis by day of treatment initiation, clinical and virological outcomes (except stool samples) were superior in patients admitted less than 7 days after symptom onset for the 52 patients who received a least one interferon dose plus lopinavir/ritonavir and ribavirin, compared with 24 patients randomized to the control arm (lopinavir/ritonavir only). In contrast, among patients admitted and started on treatment at day 7 or later after symptom onset, there were no differences between those who received lopinavir/ritonavir alone or combined with ribavirin.

Adverse events were reported in 41 of 86 patients in the combination group and 20 of 41 patients in the control arm. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, occurring in 52 of all 127 patients, fever in 48, nausea in 43, and elevated alanine transaminase level in 18. The side effects generally resolved within 3 days of the start of treatments.

There were no serious adverse events reported in the combination group. One patient in the control group had impaired hepatic enzymes requiring discontinuation of treatment. No patients died during the study.

The study was funded by the Shaw Foundation, Richard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, and Sanming Project of Medicine. The authors and Dr. Medoff declared no competing interests.

SOURCE: Hung IFN et al. Lancet. 2020 May 8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31101-6.

A triple-antiviral therapy regimen of interferon-beta1, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin shortened median time to COVID-19 viral negativity by 5 days in a small trial from Hong Kong.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

In an open-label, randomized phase 2 trial in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 infections, the median time to viral negativity by nasopharyngeal swab was 7 days for 86 patients assigned to receive a 14-day course of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg every 12 hours, ribavirin 400 mg every 12 hours, and three doses of 8 million international units of interferon beta-1b on alternate days, compared with a median time to negativity of 12 days for patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir alone (P = .0010), wrote Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung, MD, from Gleaneagles Hospital in Hong Kong, and colleagues.

“Triple-antiviral therapy with interferon beta-1b, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin were safe and superior to lopinavir/ritonavir alone in shortening virus shedding, alleviating symptoms, and facilitating discharge of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19,” they wrote in a study published online in The Lancet.

Patients who received the combination also had significantly shorter time to complete alleviation of symptoms as assessed by a National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2, a system for detecting clinical deterioration in patients with acute illnesses) score of 0 (4 vs. 8 days, respectively; hazard ratio 3.92, P < .0001), and to a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 0 (3 vs. 8 days, HR 1.89, P = .041).

The median hospital stay was 9 days for patients treated with the combination, compared with 14.5 days for controls (HR 2.72, P = .016).

In most patients treated with the combination, SARS-CoV-2 viral load was effectively suppressed in all clinical specimens, including nasopharyngeal swabs, throat and posterior oropharyngeal saliva, and stool.

In addition, serum levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6) – an inflammatory cytokine implicated in the cytokine storm frequently seen in patients with severe COVID-19 infections – were significantly lower on treatment days 2, 6, and 8 in patients treated with the combination, compared with those treated with lopinavir/ritonavir alone.

“Our trial demonstrates that early treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 with a triple combination of antiviral drugs may rapidly suppress the amount of virus in a patient’s body, relieve symptoms, and reduce the risk to health care workers by reducing the duration and quantity of viral shedding (when the virus is detectable and potentially transmissible). Furthermore, the treatment combination appeared safe and well tolerated by patients,” said lead investigator Professor Kwok-Yung Yuen from the University of Hong Kong, in a statement.

“Despite these encouraging findings,” he continued, “we must confirm in larger phase 3 trials that interferon beta-1b alone or in combination with other drugs is effective in patients with more severe illness (in whom the virus has had more time to replicate).”

Plausible rationale

Benjamin Medoff, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the biologic rationale for the combination is plausible.

“I think this is a promising study that suggests that a regimen of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin can shorten the duration of infection and improve symptoms in COVID-19 patients especially if started early in disease, in less than 7 days of symptom onset,” he said in reply to a request for expert analysis.

“The open-label nature and small size of the study limits the broad use of the regimen as noted by the authors, and it’s important to emphasize that the subjects enrolled did not have very severe disease (not in the ICU). However, the study does suggest that a larger truly randomized study is warranted,” he said.

AIDS drugs repurposed

Lopinavir/ritonavir is commonly used to treat HIV/AIDS throughout the world, and the investigators had previously reported that the antiviral agents combined with ribavirin reduced deaths and the need for intensive ventilator support among patients with SARS-CoV, the betacoronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and antivirals have shown in vitro activity against both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, the closely related pathogen that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome.

“ However the viral load of SARS and MERS peaks at around day 7-10 after symptom onset, whereas the viral load of COVID-19 peaks at the time of presentation, similar to influenza. Experience from the treatment of patients with influenza who are admitted to hospital suggested that a combination of multiple antiviral drugs is more effective than single-drug treatments in this setting of patients with a high viral load at presentation,” the investigators wrote.

To test this, they enrolled adults patients admitted to one of six Hong Kong Hospitals for virologically confirmed COVID-19 infections from Feb. 10 through March 20, 2020.

A total of 86 patients were randomly assigned to the combination and 41 to lopinavir/ritonavir alone as controls, at doses described above.

Patients who entered the trial within less than 7 days of symptom onset received the triple combination, with interferon dosing adjusted according to the day that treatment started. Patients recruited 1 or 2 days after symptom onset received three doses of interferon, patients started on day 3 or 4 received two doses, and those started on days 5 or 6 received one interferon dose. Patients recruited 7 days or later from symptom onset did not receive interferon beta-1b because of its proinflammatory effects.

In post-hoc analysis by day of treatment initiation, clinical and virological outcomes (except stool samples) were superior in patients admitted less than 7 days after symptom onset for the 52 patients who received a least one interferon dose plus lopinavir/ritonavir and ribavirin, compared with 24 patients randomized to the control arm (lopinavir/ritonavir only). In contrast, among patients admitted and started on treatment at day 7 or later after symptom onset, there were no differences between those who received lopinavir/ritonavir alone or combined with ribavirin.

Adverse events were reported in 41 of 86 patients in the combination group and 20 of 41 patients in the control arm. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, occurring in 52 of all 127 patients, fever in 48, nausea in 43, and elevated alanine transaminase level in 18. The side effects generally resolved within 3 days of the start of treatments.

There were no serious adverse events reported in the combination group. One patient in the control group had impaired hepatic enzymes requiring discontinuation of treatment. No patients died during the study.

The study was funded by the Shaw Foundation, Richard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, and Sanming Project of Medicine. The authors and Dr. Medoff declared no competing interests.

SOURCE: Hung IFN et al. Lancet. 2020 May 8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31101-6.

A triple-antiviral therapy regimen of interferon-beta1, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin shortened median time to COVID-19 viral negativity by 5 days in a small trial from Hong Kong.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

In an open-label, randomized phase 2 trial in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 infections, the median time to viral negativity by nasopharyngeal swab was 7 days for 86 patients assigned to receive a 14-day course of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg every 12 hours, ribavirin 400 mg every 12 hours, and three doses of 8 million international units of interferon beta-1b on alternate days, compared with a median time to negativity of 12 days for patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir alone (P = .0010), wrote Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung, MD, from Gleaneagles Hospital in Hong Kong, and colleagues.

“Triple-antiviral therapy with interferon beta-1b, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin were safe and superior to lopinavir/ritonavir alone in shortening virus shedding, alleviating symptoms, and facilitating discharge of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19,” they wrote in a study published online in The Lancet.

Patients who received the combination also had significantly shorter time to complete alleviation of symptoms as assessed by a National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2, a system for detecting clinical deterioration in patients with acute illnesses) score of 0 (4 vs. 8 days, respectively; hazard ratio 3.92, P < .0001), and to a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 0 (3 vs. 8 days, HR 1.89, P = .041).

The median hospital stay was 9 days for patients treated with the combination, compared with 14.5 days for controls (HR 2.72, P = .016).

In most patients treated with the combination, SARS-CoV-2 viral load was effectively suppressed in all clinical specimens, including nasopharyngeal swabs, throat and posterior oropharyngeal saliva, and stool.

In addition, serum levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6) – an inflammatory cytokine implicated in the cytokine storm frequently seen in patients with severe COVID-19 infections – were significantly lower on treatment days 2, 6, and 8 in patients treated with the combination, compared with those treated with lopinavir/ritonavir alone.

“Our trial demonstrates that early treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 with a triple combination of antiviral drugs may rapidly suppress the amount of virus in a patient’s body, relieve symptoms, and reduce the risk to health care workers by reducing the duration and quantity of viral shedding (when the virus is detectable and potentially transmissible). Furthermore, the treatment combination appeared safe and well tolerated by patients,” said lead investigator Professor Kwok-Yung Yuen from the University of Hong Kong, in a statement.

“Despite these encouraging findings,” he continued, “we must confirm in larger phase 3 trials that interferon beta-1b alone or in combination with other drugs is effective in patients with more severe illness (in whom the virus has had more time to replicate).”

Plausible rationale

Benjamin Medoff, MD, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the biologic rationale for the combination is plausible.

“I think this is a promising study that suggests that a regimen of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin can shorten the duration of infection and improve symptoms in COVID-19 patients especially if started early in disease, in less than 7 days of symptom onset,” he said in reply to a request for expert analysis.

“The open-label nature and small size of the study limits the broad use of the regimen as noted by the authors, and it’s important to emphasize that the subjects enrolled did not have very severe disease (not in the ICU). However, the study does suggest that a larger truly randomized study is warranted,” he said.

AIDS drugs repurposed

Lopinavir/ritonavir is commonly used to treat HIV/AIDS throughout the world, and the investigators had previously reported that the antiviral agents combined with ribavirin reduced deaths and the need for intensive ventilator support among patients with SARS-CoV, the betacoronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and antivirals have shown in vitro activity against both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, the closely related pathogen that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome.

“ However the viral load of SARS and MERS peaks at around day 7-10 after symptom onset, whereas the viral load of COVID-19 peaks at the time of presentation, similar to influenza. Experience from the treatment of patients with influenza who are admitted to hospital suggested that a combination of multiple antiviral drugs is more effective than single-drug treatments in this setting of patients with a high viral load at presentation,” the investigators wrote.

To test this, they enrolled adults patients admitted to one of six Hong Kong Hospitals for virologically confirmed COVID-19 infections from Feb. 10 through March 20, 2020.

A total of 86 patients were randomly assigned to the combination and 41 to lopinavir/ritonavir alone as controls, at doses described above.

Patients who entered the trial within less than 7 days of symptom onset received the triple combination, with interferon dosing adjusted according to the day that treatment started. Patients recruited 1 or 2 days after symptom onset received three doses of interferon, patients started on day 3 or 4 received two doses, and those started on days 5 or 6 received one interferon dose. Patients recruited 7 days or later from symptom onset did not receive interferon beta-1b because of its proinflammatory effects.

In post-hoc analysis by day of treatment initiation, clinical and virological outcomes (except stool samples) were superior in patients admitted less than 7 days after symptom onset for the 52 patients who received a least one interferon dose plus lopinavir/ritonavir and ribavirin, compared with 24 patients randomized to the control arm (lopinavir/ritonavir only). In contrast, among patients admitted and started on treatment at day 7 or later after symptom onset, there were no differences between those who received lopinavir/ritonavir alone or combined with ribavirin.

Adverse events were reported in 41 of 86 patients in the combination group and 20 of 41 patients in the control arm. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, occurring in 52 of all 127 patients, fever in 48, nausea in 43, and elevated alanine transaminase level in 18. The side effects generally resolved within 3 days of the start of treatments.

There were no serious adverse events reported in the combination group. One patient in the control group had impaired hepatic enzymes requiring discontinuation of treatment. No patients died during the study.

The study was funded by the Shaw Foundation, Richard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, and Sanming Project of Medicine. The authors and Dr. Medoff declared no competing interests.

SOURCE: Hung IFN et al. Lancet. 2020 May 8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31101-6.

Advanced practice providers – physician assistants and nurse practitioners – at the 733-bed Emory University Hospital in Atlanta are playing an expanded role in the admission of patients into the hospital, particularly those suspected of having COVID-19.

Before the pandemic crisis, evaluation visits by the APP would have been reviewed on the same day by the supervising physician through an in-person encounter with the patient. The new protocol is not outside of scope-of-practice regulations for APPs in Georgia or of the hospital’s bylaws. But it offers a way to help limit the overall exposure of hospital staff to patients suspected of COVID-19 infection, and the total amount of time providers spend in such patients’ room. Just one provider now needs to meet the patient during the admissions process, while the attending physician can fulfill a requirement for seeing the patient within 24 hours during rounds the following day. Emergency encounters would still be done as needed.

These protocols point toward future conversations about the limits to APPs’ scope of practice, and whether more expansive approaches could be widely adopted once the current crisis is over, say advocates for the APPs’ role.

“Our APPs are primarily doing the admissions to the hospital of COVID patients and of non-COVID patients, as we’ve always done. But with COVID-infected or -suspected patients, we’re trying to minimize exposure for our providers,” explained Susan Ortiz, a certified PA, lead APP at Emory University Hospital. “In this way, we can also see more patients more efficiently.” Ms. Ortiz said she finds in talking to other APP leads in the Emory system that “each facility has its own culture and way of doing things. But for the most part, they’re all trying to do something to limit providers’ time in patients’ rooms.”

In response to the rapidly moving crisis, tactics to limit personnel in COVID patients’ rooms to the “absolutely essential” include gathering much of the needed history and other information requested from the patient by telephone, Ms. Ortiz said. This can be done either over the patient’s own cell phone or a phone placed in the room by hospital staff. Family members may be called to supplement this information, with the patient’s consent.

Once vital sign monitoring equipment is hooked up, it is possible to monitor the patient’s vital signs remotely without making frequent trips into the room. That way, in-person vital sign monitoring doesn’t need to happen routinely – at least not as often. One observation by clinicians on Ms. Ortiz’s team: listening for lung sounds with a stethoscope has not been shown to alter treatment for these patients. Once a chest X-ray shows structural changes in a patient’s lung, all lung exams are going to sound bad.

The admitting provider still needs to meet the patient in person for part of the admission visit and physical exam, but the amount of time spent in close personal contact with the patient can be much shorter, Ms. Ortiz said. For patients who are admitted, if there is a question about difficulty swallowing, they will see a speech pathologist, and if evidence of malnutrition, a nutritionist. “But we have to be extremely thoughtful about when people go into the room. So we are not ordering these ancillary services as routinely as we do during non-COVID times,” she said.

Appropriate levels of fear

Emory’s hospitalists are communicating daily about a rapidly changing situation. “We get a note by email every day, and we have a Dropbox account for downloading more information,” Ms. Ortiz said. A joint on-call system is used to provide backup coverage of APPs at the seven Emory hospitals. When replacement shifts need filling in a hurry, practitioners are able to obtain emergency credentials at any of the other hospitals. “It’s a voluntary process to sign up to be on-call,” Ms. Ortiz said. So far, that has been sufficient.

All staff have their own level of “appropriate fear” of this infection, Ms. Ortiz noted. “We have an extremely supportive group here to back up those of us who, for good reason, don’t want to be admitting the COVID patients.” Ms. Ortiz opted out of doing COVID admissions because her husband’s health places him at particular risk. “But with the cross-coverage we have, sometimes I’ll provide assistance when needed if a patient is suspected of being infected.” APPs are critical to Emory’s hospital medicine group – not ancillaries. “Everyone here feels that way. So we want to give them a lot of support. We’re all pitching in, doing it together,” she said.

“We said when we started with this, a couple of weeks before the surge started, that you could volunteer to see COVID patients,” said Emory hospitalist Jessica Nave, MD. “As we came to realize that the demand would be greater, we said you would need to opt out of seeing these patients, rather than opt in, and have a reason for doing so.” An example is pregnant staff, of which there seems to be a lot at Emory right now, Dr. Nave said, or those who are immunocompromised for other reasons. Those who don’t opt out are seeing the majority of the COVID patients, depending on actual need.

Dr. Nave is married to another hospitalist at Emory. “We can’t isolate from each other or our children. He and I have a regimented protocol for how we handle the risk, which includes taking off our shoes and clothes in the garage, showering and wiping down every place we might have touched. But those steps are not guarantees.” Other staff at Emory are isolating from their families for weeks at a time. Emory has a conference hotel offering discounted rates to staff. Nine physicians at Emory have been tested for the infection based on presenting symptoms, but at press time none had tested positive.

Streamlining code blue

Another area in which Emory has revised its policies in response to COVID-19 is for in-hospital cardiac arrest code response. Codes are inherently unpredictable, and crowd control has always been an issue for them, Dr. Nave said. “Historically, you could have 15 or more people show up when a code was called. Now, more than ever, we need to limit the number of people involved, for the same reason, avoiding unnecessary patient contact.”

The hospital’s Resuscitation Committee took the lead on developing a new policy, approved by the its Critical Care Committee and COVID Task Force, to limit the number of professionals in the room when running a code to an essential six: two doing chest compression, two managing airways, a code leader, and a critical care nurse. Outside the patient’s door, wearing the same personal protective equipment (PPE), are a pharmacist, recorder, and runner. “If you’re not one of those nine, you don’t need to be involved and should leave the area,” Dr. Nave said.

Staff have been instructed that they need to don appropriate PPE, including gown, mask, and eye wear, before entering the room for a code – even if that delays the start of intervention. “We’ve also made a code kit for each unit with quickly accessible gowns and masks. It should be used only for code blues.”

Increasing flexibility for the team

PAs and NPs in other locations are also exploring opportunities for gearing up to play larger roles in hospital care in the current crisis situation. The American Association of Physician Assistants has urged all U.S. governors to issue executive orders to waive state-specific licensing requirements for physician supervision or collaboration during the crisis, in order to increase flexibility of health care teams to deploy APPs.

AAPA believes the supervisory requirement is the biggest current barrier to mobilizing PAs and NPs. That includes those who have been furloughed from outpatient or other settings but are limited in their ability to contribute to the COVID crisis by the need to sign a supervision agreement with a physician at a new hospital.

The crisis is creating an opportunity to better appreciate the value PAs and NPs bring to health care, said Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, vice president for advanced practice providers at Sound Physicians, a national hospitalist company based in Tacoma, Wash. The company recently sent a memo to the leadership of hospital sites at which it has contracts, requesting suspension of the hospitals’ requirements for a daily physician supervisory visit for APPs – which can be a hurdle when trying to leverage all hands on deck in the crisis.

NPs and PAs are stepping up and volunteering for COVID patients, Ms. Cardin said. Some have even taken leaves from their jobs to go to New York to help out at the epicenter of the U.S. crisis. “They want to make a difference. We’ve been deploying nonhospital medicine APPs from surgery, primary care, and elsewhere, embedding them on the hospital medicine team.”

Before the crisis, APPs at Sound Physicians weren’t always able to practice at the top of their licenses, depending on the hospital setting, added Alicia Scheffer, CNP, the company’s Great Lakes regional director for APPs. “Then COVID-19 showed up and really expedited conversations about how to maximize caseloads using APPs and about the fear of failing patients due to lack of capacity.”

Courtesy Sound Physicians

In several locales, Sound Physicians is using quarantined providers to do telephone triage, or staffing ICUs with APPs backed up by telemedicine. “In APP-led ICUs, where the nurses are leading, they are intubating patients, placing central lines, things we weren’t allowed to do before,” Ms. Scheffer said.

A spirit of improvisation

There is a lot of tension at Emory University Hospital these days, reflecting the fears and uncertainties about the crisis, Dr. Nave said. “But there’s also a strangely powerful camaraderie like I’ve never seen before. When you walk onto the COVID units, you feel immediately bonded to the nurses, the techs, the phlebotomists. And you feel like you could talk about anything.”

Changes such as those made at Emory, have been talked about for a while, for example when hospitalists are having a busy night, she said. “But because this is a big cultural change, some physicians resisted it. We trust our APPs. But if the doctor’s name is on a patient chart, they want to see the patient – just for their own comfort level.”

Ms. Ortiz thinks the experience with the COVID crisis could help to advance the conversation about the appropriate role for APPs and their scope of practice in hospital medicine, once the current crisis has passed. “People were used to always doing things a certain way. This experience, hopefully, will get us to the point where attending physicians have more comfort with the APP’s ability to act autonomously,” she said.

“We’ve also talked about piloting telemedicine examinations using Zoom,” Dr. Nave added. “It’s making us think a lot of remote cross-coverage could be done that way. We’ve talked about using the hospital’s iPads with patients. This crisis really makes you think you want to innovate, in a spirit of improvisation,” she said. “Now is the time to try some of these things.”

Editors note: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals are seeing unprecedented volumes of patients requiring hospital medicine groups to stretch their current resources and recruit providers from outside their groups to bolster their inpatient services. The Society of Hospital Medicine has put together the following stepwise guide for onboarding traditional outpatient and subspecialty-based providers to work on general medicine wards: COVID-19 nonhospitalist onboarding resources.

Advanced practice providers – physician assistants and nurse practitioners – at the 733-bed Emory University Hospital in Atlanta are playing an expanded role in the admission of patients into the hospital, particularly those suspected of having COVID-19.

Before the pandemic crisis, evaluation visits by the APP would have been reviewed on the same day by the supervising physician through an in-person encounter with the patient. The new protocol is not outside of scope-of-practice regulations for APPs in Georgia or of the hospital’s bylaws. But it offers a way to help limit the overall exposure of hospital staff to patients suspected of COVID-19 infection, and the total amount of time providers spend in such patients’ room. Just one provider now needs to meet the patient during the admissions process, while the attending physician can fulfill a requirement for seeing the patient within 24 hours during rounds the following day. Emergency encounters would still be done as needed.

These protocols point toward future conversations about the limits to APPs’ scope of practice, and whether more expansive approaches could be widely adopted once the current crisis is over, say advocates for the APPs’ role.

“Our APPs are primarily doing the admissions to the hospital of COVID patients and of non-COVID patients, as we’ve always done. But with COVID-infected or -suspected patients, we’re trying to minimize exposure for our providers,” explained Susan Ortiz, a certified PA, lead APP at Emory University Hospital. “In this way, we can also see more patients more efficiently.” Ms. Ortiz said she finds in talking to other APP leads in the Emory system that “each facility has its own culture and way of doing things. But for the most part, they’re all trying to do something to limit providers’ time in patients’ rooms.”

In response to the rapidly moving crisis, tactics to limit personnel in COVID patients’ rooms to the “absolutely essential” include gathering much of the needed history and other information requested from the patient by telephone, Ms. Ortiz said. This can be done either over the patient’s own cell phone or a phone placed in the room by hospital staff. Family members may be called to supplement this information, with the patient’s consent.

Once vital sign monitoring equipment is hooked up, it is possible to monitor the patient’s vital signs remotely without making frequent trips into the room. That way, in-person vital sign monitoring doesn’t need to happen routinely – at least not as often. One observation by clinicians on Ms. Ortiz’s team: listening for lung sounds with a stethoscope has not been shown to alter treatment for these patients. Once a chest X-ray shows structural changes in a patient’s lung, all lung exams are going to sound bad.

The admitting provider still needs to meet the patient in person for part of the admission visit and physical exam, but the amount of time spent in close personal contact with the patient can be much shorter, Ms. Ortiz said. For patients who are admitted, if there is a question about difficulty swallowing, they will see a speech pathologist, and if evidence of malnutrition, a nutritionist. “But we have to be extremely thoughtful about when people go into the room. So we are not ordering these ancillary services as routinely as we do during non-COVID times,” she said.

Appropriate levels of fear

Emory’s hospitalists are communicating daily about a rapidly changing situation. “We get a note by email every day, and we have a Dropbox account for downloading more information,” Ms. Ortiz said. A joint on-call system is used to provide backup coverage of APPs at the seven Emory hospitals. When replacement shifts need filling in a hurry, practitioners are able to obtain emergency credentials at any of the other hospitals. “It’s a voluntary process to sign up to be on-call,” Ms. Ortiz said. So far, that has been sufficient.

All staff have their own level of “appropriate fear” of this infection, Ms. Ortiz noted. “We have an extremely supportive group here to back up those of us who, for good reason, don’t want to be admitting the COVID patients.” Ms. Ortiz opted out of doing COVID admissions because her husband’s health places him at particular risk. “But with the cross-coverage we have, sometimes I’ll provide assistance when needed if a patient is suspected of being infected.” APPs are critical to Emory’s hospital medicine group – not ancillaries. “Everyone here feels that way. So we want to give them a lot of support. We’re all pitching in, doing it together,” she said.

“We said when we started with this, a couple of weeks before the surge started, that you could volunteer to see COVID patients,” said Emory hospitalist Jessica Nave, MD. “As we came to realize that the demand would be greater, we said you would need to opt out of seeing these patients, rather than opt in, and have a reason for doing so.” An example is pregnant staff, of which there seems to be a lot at Emory right now, Dr. Nave said, or those who are immunocompromised for other reasons. Those who don’t opt out are seeing the majority of the COVID patients, depending on actual need.

Dr. Nave is married to another hospitalist at Emory. “We can’t isolate from each other or our children. He and I have a regimented protocol for how we handle the risk, which includes taking off our shoes and clothes in the garage, showering and wiping down every place we might have touched. But those steps are not guarantees.” Other staff at Emory are isolating from their families for weeks at a time. Emory has a conference hotel offering discounted rates to staff. Nine physicians at Emory have been tested for the infection based on presenting symptoms, but at press time none had tested positive.

Streamlining code blue

Another area in which Emory has revised its policies in response to COVID-19 is for in-hospital cardiac arrest code response. Codes are inherently unpredictable, and crowd control has always been an issue for them, Dr. Nave said. “Historically, you could have 15 or more people show up when a code was called. Now, more than ever, we need to limit the number of people involved, for the same reason, avoiding unnecessary patient contact.”

The hospital’s Resuscitation Committee took the lead on developing a new policy, approved by the its Critical Care Committee and COVID Task Force, to limit the number of professionals in the room when running a code to an essential six: two doing chest compression, two managing airways, a code leader, and a critical care nurse. Outside the patient’s door, wearing the same personal protective equipment (PPE), are a pharmacist, recorder, and runner. “If you’re not one of those nine, you don’t need to be involved and should leave the area,” Dr. Nave said.

Staff have been instructed that they need to don appropriate PPE, including gown, mask, and eye wear, before entering the room for a code – even if that delays the start of intervention. “We’ve also made a code kit for each unit with quickly accessible gowns and masks. It should be used only for code blues.”

Increasing flexibility for the team

PAs and NPs in other locations are also exploring opportunities for gearing up to play larger roles in hospital care in the current crisis situation. The American Association of Physician Assistants has urged all U.S. governors to issue executive orders to waive state-specific licensing requirements for physician supervision or collaboration during the crisis, in order to increase flexibility of health care teams to deploy APPs.

AAPA believes the supervisory requirement is the biggest current barrier to mobilizing PAs and NPs. That includes those who have been furloughed from outpatient or other settings but are limited in their ability to contribute to the COVID crisis by the need to sign a supervision agreement with a physician at a new hospital.

The crisis is creating an opportunity to better appreciate the value PAs and NPs bring to health care, said Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, vice president for advanced practice providers at Sound Physicians, a national hospitalist company based in Tacoma, Wash. The company recently sent a memo to the leadership of hospital sites at which it has contracts, requesting suspension of the hospitals’ requirements for a daily physician supervisory visit for APPs – which can be a hurdle when trying to leverage all hands on deck in the crisis.

NPs and PAs are stepping up and volunteering for COVID patients, Ms. Cardin said. Some have even taken leaves from their jobs to go to New York to help out at the epicenter of the U.S. crisis. “They want to make a difference. We’ve been deploying nonhospital medicine APPs from surgery, primary care, and elsewhere, embedding them on the hospital medicine team.”

Before the crisis, APPs at Sound Physicians weren’t always able to practice at the top of their licenses, depending on the hospital setting, added Alicia Scheffer, CNP, the company’s Great Lakes regional director for APPs. “Then COVID-19 showed up and really expedited conversations about how to maximize caseloads using APPs and about the fear of failing patients due to lack of capacity.”

Courtesy Sound Physicians

In several locales, Sound Physicians is using quarantined providers to do telephone triage, or staffing ICUs with APPs backed up by telemedicine. “In APP-led ICUs, where the nurses are leading, they are intubating patients, placing central lines, things we weren’t allowed to do before,” Ms. Scheffer said.

A spirit of improvisation

There is a lot of tension at Emory University Hospital these days, reflecting the fears and uncertainties about the crisis, Dr. Nave said. “But there’s also a strangely powerful camaraderie like I’ve never seen before. When you walk onto the COVID units, you feel immediately bonded to the nurses, the techs, the phlebotomists. And you feel like you could talk about anything.”

Changes such as those made at Emory, have been talked about for a while, for example when hospitalists are having a busy night, she said. “But because this is a big cultural change, some physicians resisted it. We trust our APPs. But if the doctor’s name is on a patient chart, they want to see the patient – just for their own comfort level.”

Ms. Ortiz thinks the experience with the COVID crisis could help to advance the conversation about the appropriate role for APPs and their scope of practice in hospital medicine, once the current crisis has passed. “People were used to always doing things a certain way. This experience, hopefully, will get us to the point where attending physicians have more comfort with the APP’s ability to act autonomously,” she said.

“We’ve also talked about piloting telemedicine examinations using Zoom,” Dr. Nave added. “It’s making us think a lot of remote cross-coverage could be done that way. We’ve talked about using the hospital’s iPads with patients. This crisis really makes you think you want to innovate, in a spirit of improvisation,” she said. “Now is the time to try some of these things.”

Editors note: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals are seeing unprecedented volumes of patients requiring hospital medicine groups to stretch their current resources and recruit providers from outside their groups to bolster their inpatient services. The Society of Hospital Medicine has put together the following stepwise guide for onboarding traditional outpatient and subspecialty-based providers to work on general medicine wards: COVID-19 nonhospitalist onboarding resources.

Advanced practice providers – physician assistants and nurse practitioners – at the 733-bed Emory University Hospital in Atlanta are playing an expanded role in the admission of patients into the hospital, particularly those suspected of having COVID-19.

Before the pandemic crisis, evaluation visits by the APP would have been reviewed on the same day by the supervising physician through an in-person encounter with the patient. The new protocol is not outside of scope-of-practice regulations for APPs in Georgia or of the hospital’s bylaws. But it offers a way to help limit the overall exposure of hospital staff to patients suspected of COVID-19 infection, and the total amount of time providers spend in such patients’ room. Just one provider now needs to meet the patient during the admissions process, while the attending physician can fulfill a requirement for seeing the patient within 24 hours during rounds the following day. Emergency encounters would still be done as needed.

These protocols point toward future conversations about the limits to APPs’ scope of practice, and whether more expansive approaches could be widely adopted once the current crisis is over, say advocates for the APPs’ role.

“Our APPs are primarily doing the admissions to the hospital of COVID patients and of non-COVID patients, as we’ve always done. But with COVID-infected or -suspected patients, we’re trying to minimize exposure for our providers,” explained Susan Ortiz, a certified PA, lead APP at Emory University Hospital. “In this way, we can also see more patients more efficiently.” Ms. Ortiz said she finds in talking to other APP leads in the Emory system that “each facility has its own culture and way of doing things. But for the most part, they’re all trying to do something to limit providers’ time in patients’ rooms.”

In response to the rapidly moving crisis, tactics to limit personnel in COVID patients’ rooms to the “absolutely essential” include gathering much of the needed history and other information requested from the patient by telephone, Ms. Ortiz said. This can be done either over the patient’s own cell phone or a phone placed in the room by hospital staff. Family members may be called to supplement this information, with the patient’s consent.

Once vital sign monitoring equipment is hooked up, it is possible to monitor the patient’s vital signs remotely without making frequent trips into the room. That way, in-person vital sign monitoring doesn’t need to happen routinely – at least not as often. One observation by clinicians on Ms. Ortiz’s team: listening for lung sounds with a stethoscope has not been shown to alter treatment for these patients. Once a chest X-ray shows structural changes in a patient’s lung, all lung exams are going to sound bad.

The admitting provider still needs to meet the patient in person for part of the admission visit and physical exam, but the amount of time spent in close personal contact with the patient can be much shorter, Ms. Ortiz said. For patients who are admitted, if there is a question about difficulty swallowing, they will see a speech pathologist, and if evidence of malnutrition, a nutritionist. “But we have to be extremely thoughtful about when people go into the room. So we are not ordering these ancillary services as routinely as we do during non-COVID times,” she said.

Appropriate levels of fear

Emory’s hospitalists are communicating daily about a rapidly changing situation. “We get a note by email every day, and we have a Dropbox account for downloading more information,” Ms. Ortiz said. A joint on-call system is used to provide backup coverage of APPs at the seven Emory hospitals. When replacement shifts need filling in a hurry, practitioners are able to obtain emergency credentials at any of the other hospitals. “It’s a voluntary process to sign up to be on-call,” Ms. Ortiz said. So far, that has been sufficient.

All staff have their own level of “appropriate fear” of this infection, Ms. Ortiz noted. “We have an extremely supportive group here to back up those of us who, for good reason, don’t want to be admitting the COVID patients.” Ms. Ortiz opted out of doing COVID admissions because her husband’s health places him at particular risk. “But with the cross-coverage we have, sometimes I’ll provide assistance when needed if a patient is suspected of being infected.” APPs are critical to Emory’s hospital medicine group – not ancillaries. “Everyone here feels that way. So we want to give them a lot of support. We’re all pitching in, doing it together,” she said.

“We said when we started with this, a couple of weeks before the surge started, that you could volunteer to see COVID patients,” said Emory hospitalist Jessica Nave, MD. “As we came to realize that the demand would be greater, we said you would need to opt out of seeing these patients, rather than opt in, and have a reason for doing so.” An example is pregnant staff, of which there seems to be a lot at Emory right now, Dr. Nave said, or those who are immunocompromised for other reasons. Those who don’t opt out are seeing the majority of the COVID patients, depending on actual need.

Dr. Nave is married to another hospitalist at Emory. “We can’t isolate from each other or our children. He and I have a regimented protocol for how we handle the risk, which includes taking off our shoes and clothes in the garage, showering and wiping down every place we might have touched. But those steps are not guarantees.” Other staff at Emory are isolating from their families for weeks at a time. Emory has a conference hotel offering discounted rates to staff. Nine physicians at Emory have been tested for the infection based on presenting symptoms, but at press time none had tested positive.

Streamlining code blue

Another area in which Emory has revised its policies in response to COVID-19 is for in-hospital cardiac arrest code response. Codes are inherently unpredictable, and crowd control has always been an issue for them, Dr. Nave said. “Historically, you could have 15 or more people show up when a code was called. Now, more than ever, we need to limit the number of people involved, for the same reason, avoiding unnecessary patient contact.”

The hospital’s Resuscitation Committee took the lead on developing a new policy, approved by the its Critical Care Committee and COVID Task Force, to limit the number of professionals in the room when running a code to an essential six: two doing chest compression, two managing airways, a code leader, and a critical care nurse. Outside the patient’s door, wearing the same personal protective equipment (PPE), are a pharmacist, recorder, and runner. “If you’re not one of those nine, you don’t need to be involved and should leave the area,” Dr. Nave said.

Staff have been instructed that they need to don appropriate PPE, including gown, mask, and eye wear, before entering the room for a code – even if that delays the start of intervention. “We’ve also made a code kit for each unit with quickly accessible gowns and masks. It should be used only for code blues.”

Increasing flexibility for the team

PAs and NPs in other locations are also exploring opportunities for gearing up to play larger roles in hospital care in the current crisis situation. The American Association of Physician Assistants has urged all U.S. governors to issue executive orders to waive state-specific licensing requirements for physician supervision or collaboration during the crisis, in order to increase flexibility of health care teams to deploy APPs.

AAPA believes the supervisory requirement is the biggest current barrier to mobilizing PAs and NPs. That includes those who have been furloughed from outpatient or other settings but are limited in their ability to contribute to the COVID crisis by the need to sign a supervision agreement with a physician at a new hospital.

The crisis is creating an opportunity to better appreciate the value PAs and NPs bring to health care, said Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, vice president for advanced practice providers at Sound Physicians, a national hospitalist company based in Tacoma, Wash. The company recently sent a memo to the leadership of hospital sites at which it has contracts, requesting suspension of the hospitals’ requirements for a daily physician supervisory visit for APPs – which can be a hurdle when trying to leverage all hands on deck in the crisis.

NPs and PAs are stepping up and volunteering for COVID patients, Ms. Cardin said. Some have even taken leaves from their jobs to go to New York to help out at the epicenter of the U.S. crisis. “They want to make a difference. We’ve been deploying nonhospital medicine APPs from surgery, primary care, and elsewhere, embedding them on the hospital medicine team.”

Before the crisis, APPs at Sound Physicians weren’t always able to practice at the top of their licenses, depending on the hospital setting, added Alicia Scheffer, CNP, the company’s Great Lakes regional director for APPs. “Then COVID-19 showed up and really expedited conversations about how to maximize caseloads using APPs and about the fear of failing patients due to lack of capacity.”

Courtesy Sound Physicians

In several locales, Sound Physicians is using quarantined providers to do telephone triage, or staffing ICUs with APPs backed up by telemedicine. “In APP-led ICUs, where the nurses are leading, they are intubating patients, placing central lines, things we weren’t allowed to do before,” Ms. Scheffer said.

A spirit of improvisation

There is a lot of tension at Emory University Hospital these days, reflecting the fears and uncertainties about the crisis, Dr. Nave said. “But there’s also a strangely powerful camaraderie like I’ve never seen before. When you walk onto the COVID units, you feel immediately bonded to the nurses, the techs, the phlebotomists. And you feel like you could talk about anything.”

Changes such as those made at Emory, have been talked about for a while, for example when hospitalists are having a busy night, she said. “But because this is a big cultural change, some physicians resisted it. We trust our APPs. But if the doctor’s name is on a patient chart, they want to see the patient – just for their own comfort level.”

Ms. Ortiz thinks the experience with the COVID crisis could help to advance the conversation about the appropriate role for APPs and their scope of practice in hospital medicine, once the current crisis has passed. “People were used to always doing things a certain way. This experience, hopefully, will get us to the point where attending physicians have more comfort with the APP’s ability to act autonomously,” she said.

“We’ve also talked about piloting telemedicine examinations using Zoom,” Dr. Nave added. “It’s making us think a lot of remote cross-coverage could be done that way. We’ve talked about using the hospital’s iPads with patients. This crisis really makes you think you want to innovate, in a spirit of improvisation,” she said. “Now is the time to try some of these things.”

Editors note: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals are seeing unprecedented volumes of patients requiring hospital medicine groups to stretch their current resources and recruit providers from outside their groups to bolster their inpatient services. The Society of Hospital Medicine has put together the following stepwise guide for onboarding traditional outpatient and subspecialty-based providers to work on general medicine wards: COVID-19 nonhospitalist onboarding resources.

A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, social media’s role in the rapid spread of information is undeniable. From the beginning, Chinese ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, MD, first raised the alarm to his classmates through WeChat, a messaging and social media app. Since that time, individuals, groups, organizations, government agencies, and mass media outlets have used social media to share ideas and disseminate information. Individuals check in on loved ones and update others on their own safety. Networks of clinicians discuss patient presentations, new therapeutics, management strategies, and institutional protocols. Multiple organizations including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization use Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter accounts to provide updates on ongoing efforts and spread public health messaging.

Unfortunately, not all information is trustworthy. Social media outlets have been used to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories, and to promote false treatments. Google, YouTube, and Facebook are now actively trying to reduce the viral spread of misleading information and to block hoaxes. With the increasing amount of news and information consumed and disseminated via social media, clinicians need to critically appraise information presented on those platforms, and to be familiar with how to use them to disseminate informed, effective, and responsible information.
 

Appraisal of social media content

Traditional scholarly communication exists in many forms and includes observations, anecdotes, perspectives, case reports, and research. Each form involves differing levels of academic rigor and standards of evaluation. Electronic content and online resources pose a unique challenge because there is no standardized method for assessing impact and quality. Proposed scales for evaluation of online resources such as Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ),¹ Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources (AliEM AIR) scoring system,² and the Social Media Index³ are promising and can be used to guide critical appraisal of social media content.

The same skepticism and critical thinking applied to traditional resources should be applied when evaluating online resources. The scales listed above include questions such as:

• How accurate is the data presented and conclusions drawn?
• Does the content reflect evidence-based medicine?
• Has the content undergone an editorial process?
• Who are the authors and what are their credentials?
• Are there potential biases or conflicts of interest present?
• Have references been cited?
• How does this content affect/change clinical practice?

While these proposed review metrics may not apply to all forms of social media content, clinicians should be discerning when consuming or disseminating online content.
 

Strategies for effective communication on social media

In addition to appraising social media content, clinicians also should be able to craft effective messages on social media to spread trustworthy content. The CDC offers guidelines and best practices for social media communication^4,5 and the WHO has created a framework for effective communications.⁶ Both organizations recognize social media as a powerful communication tool that has the potential to greatly impact public health efforts.

Some key principles highlighted from these sources include the following:

• Identify an audience and make messages relevant. Taking time to listen to key stakeholders within the target audience (individuals, health care providers, communities, policy-makers, organizations) allows for better understanding of baseline knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs that may drive concerns and ultimately helps to tailor the messaging.
• Make messages accessible. Certain social media platforms are more often utilized for specific target audiences. Verbiage used should take into account the health literacy of the audience. A friendly, professional, conversational tone encourages interaction and dialogue.
• Engage the audience by offering something actionable. Changing behavior is a daunting task that involves multiple steps. Encouraging behavioral changes initially at an individual level has the potential to influence community practices and policies.
• Communication should be timely. It should address current and urgent topics. Keep abreast of the situation as it evolves to ensure messaging stays relevant. Deliver consistent messaging and updates.
• Sources must be credible. It is important to be transparent about expertise and honest about what is known and unknown about the topic.
• Content should be understandable. In addition to using plain language, visual aids and real stories can be used to reinforce messages.

Use social media responsibly

Clinicians have a responsibility to use social media to disseminate credible content, refute misleading content, and create accurate content. When clinicians share health-related information via social media, it should be appraised skeptically and crafted responsibly because that message can have profound implications on public health. Mixed messaging that is contradictory, inconsistent, or unclear can lead to panic and confusion. By recognizing the important role of social media in access to information and as a tool for public health messaging and crisis communication, clinicians have an obligation to consider both the positive and negative impacts as messengers in that space.

Dr. Ren is a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital, Washington. Dr. Simpson is a pediatric emergency medicine attending and medical director of emergency preparedness of Children’s National Hospital. They do not have any disclosures or conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Ren and Dr. Simpson at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. AEM Educ Train. 2019;3(4):387-92.

2. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(6):729-35.

3. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(6):696-702.

4. CDC Guide to Writing for Social Media.

5. The Health Communicator’s Social Media Toolkit.

6. WHO Strategic Communications Framework for effective communications.

A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, social media’s role in the rapid spread of information is undeniable. From the beginning, Chinese ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, MD, first raised the alarm to his classmates through WeChat, a messaging and social media app. Since that time, individuals, groups, organizations, government agencies, and mass media outlets have used social media to share ideas and disseminate information. Individuals check in on loved ones and update others on their own safety. Networks of clinicians discuss patient presentations, new therapeutics, management strategies, and institutional protocols. Multiple organizations including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization use Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter accounts to provide updates on ongoing efforts and spread public health messaging.

Unfortunately, not all information is trustworthy. Social media outlets have been used to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories, and to promote false treatments. Google, YouTube, and Facebook are now actively trying to reduce the viral spread of misleading information and to block hoaxes. With the increasing amount of news and information consumed and disseminated via social media, clinicians need to critically appraise information presented on those platforms, and to be familiar with how to use them to disseminate informed, effective, and responsible information.
 

Appraisal of social media content

Traditional scholarly communication exists in many forms and includes observations, anecdotes, perspectives, case reports, and research. Each form involves differing levels of academic rigor and standards of evaluation. Electronic content and online resources pose a unique challenge because there is no standardized method for assessing impact and quality. Proposed scales for evaluation of online resources such as Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ),¹ Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources (AliEM AIR) scoring system,² and the Social Media Index³ are promising and can be used to guide critical appraisal of social media content.

The same skepticism and critical thinking applied to traditional resources should be applied when evaluating online resources. The scales listed above include questions such as:

• How accurate is the data presented and conclusions drawn?
• Does the content reflect evidence-based medicine?
• Has the content undergone an editorial process?
• Who are the authors and what are their credentials?
• Are there potential biases or conflicts of interest present?
• Have references been cited?
• How does this content affect/change clinical practice?

While these proposed review metrics may not apply to all forms of social media content, clinicians should be discerning when consuming or disseminating online content.
 

Strategies for effective communication on social media

In addition to appraising social media content, clinicians also should be able to craft effective messages on social media to spread trustworthy content. The CDC offers guidelines and best practices for social media communication^4,5 and the WHO has created a framework for effective communications.⁶ Both organizations recognize social media as a powerful communication tool that has the potential to greatly impact public health efforts.

Some key principles highlighted from these sources include the following:

• Identify an audience and make messages relevant. Taking time to listen to key stakeholders within the target audience (individuals, health care providers, communities, policy-makers, organizations) allows for better understanding of baseline knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs that may drive concerns and ultimately helps to tailor the messaging.
• Make messages accessible. Certain social media platforms are more often utilized for specific target audiences. Verbiage used should take into account the health literacy of the audience. A friendly, professional, conversational tone encourages interaction and dialogue.
• Engage the audience by offering something actionable. Changing behavior is a daunting task that involves multiple steps. Encouraging behavioral changes initially at an individual level has the potential to influence community practices and policies.
• Communication should be timely. It should address current and urgent topics. Keep abreast of the situation as it evolves to ensure messaging stays relevant. Deliver consistent messaging and updates.
• Sources must be credible. It is important to be transparent about expertise and honest about what is known and unknown about the topic.
• Content should be understandable. In addition to using plain language, visual aids and real stories can be used to reinforce messages.

Use social media responsibly

Clinicians have a responsibility to use social media to disseminate credible content, refute misleading content, and create accurate content. When clinicians share health-related information via social media, it should be appraised skeptically and crafted responsibly because that message can have profound implications on public health. Mixed messaging that is contradictory, inconsistent, or unclear can lead to panic and confusion. By recognizing the important role of social media in access to information and as a tool for public health messaging and crisis communication, clinicians have an obligation to consider both the positive and negative impacts as messengers in that space.

Dr. Ren is a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital, Washington. Dr. Simpson is a pediatric emergency medicine attending and medical director of emergency preparedness of Children’s National Hospital. They do not have any disclosures or conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Ren and Dr. Simpson at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. AEM Educ Train. 2019;3(4):387-92.

2. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(6):729-35.

3. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(6):696-702.

4. CDC Guide to Writing for Social Media.

5. The Health Communicator’s Social Media Toolkit.

6. WHO Strategic Communications Framework for effective communications.

A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, social media’s role in the rapid spread of information is undeniable. From the beginning, Chinese ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, MD, first raised the alarm to his classmates through WeChat, a messaging and social media app. Since that time, individuals, groups, organizations, government agencies, and mass media outlets have used social media to share ideas and disseminate information. Individuals check in on loved ones and update others on their own safety. Networks of clinicians discuss patient presentations, new therapeutics, management strategies, and institutional protocols. Multiple organizations including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization use Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter accounts to provide updates on ongoing efforts and spread public health messaging.

Unfortunately, not all information is trustworthy. Social media outlets have been used to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories, and to promote false treatments. Google, YouTube, and Facebook are now actively trying to reduce the viral spread of misleading information and to block hoaxes. With the increasing amount of news and information consumed and disseminated via social media, clinicians need to critically appraise information presented on those platforms, and to be familiar with how to use them to disseminate informed, effective, and responsible information.
 

Appraisal of social media content

Traditional scholarly communication exists in many forms and includes observations, anecdotes, perspectives, case reports, and research. Each form involves differing levels of academic rigor and standards of evaluation. Electronic content and online resources pose a unique challenge because there is no standardized method for assessing impact and quality. Proposed scales for evaluation of online resources such as Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ),¹ Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources (AliEM AIR) scoring system,² and the Social Media Index³ are promising and can be used to guide critical appraisal of social media content.

The same skepticism and critical thinking applied to traditional resources should be applied when evaluating online resources. The scales listed above include questions such as:

• How accurate is the data presented and conclusions drawn?
• Does the content reflect evidence-based medicine?
• Has the content undergone an editorial process?
• Who are the authors and what are their credentials?
• Are there potential biases or conflicts of interest present?
• Have references been cited?
• How does this content affect/change clinical practice?

While these proposed review metrics may not apply to all forms of social media content, clinicians should be discerning when consuming or disseminating online content.
 

Strategies for effective communication on social media

In addition to appraising social media content, clinicians also should be able to craft effective messages on social media to spread trustworthy content. The CDC offers guidelines and best practices for social media communication^4,5 and the WHO has created a framework for effective communications.⁶ Both organizations recognize social media as a powerful communication tool that has the potential to greatly impact public health efforts.

Some key principles highlighted from these sources include the following:

• Identify an audience and make messages relevant. Taking time to listen to key stakeholders within the target audience (individuals, health care providers, communities, policy-makers, organizations) allows for better understanding of baseline knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs that may drive concerns and ultimately helps to tailor the messaging.
• Make messages accessible. Certain social media platforms are more often utilized for specific target audiences. Verbiage used should take into account the health literacy of the audience. A friendly, professional, conversational tone encourages interaction and dialogue.
• Engage the audience by offering something actionable. Changing behavior is a daunting task that involves multiple steps. Encouraging behavioral changes initially at an individual level has the potential to influence community practices and policies.
• Communication should be timely. It should address current and urgent topics. Keep abreast of the situation as it evolves to ensure messaging stays relevant. Deliver consistent messaging and updates.
• Sources must be credible. It is important to be transparent about expertise and honest about what is known and unknown about the topic.
• Content should be understandable. In addition to using plain language, visual aids and real stories can be used to reinforce messages.

Use social media responsibly

Clinicians have a responsibility to use social media to disseminate credible content, refute misleading content, and create accurate content. When clinicians share health-related information via social media, it should be appraised skeptically and crafted responsibly because that message can have profound implications on public health. Mixed messaging that is contradictory, inconsistent, or unclear can lead to panic and confusion. By recognizing the important role of social media in access to information and as a tool for public health messaging and crisis communication, clinicians have an obligation to consider both the positive and negative impacts as messengers in that space.

Dr. Ren is a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital, Washington. Dr. Simpson is a pediatric emergency medicine attending and medical director of emergency preparedness of Children’s National Hospital. They do not have any disclosures or conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Ren and Dr. Simpson at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. AEM Educ Train. 2019;3(4):387-92.

2. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(6):729-35.

3. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(6):696-702.

4. CDC Guide to Writing for Social Media.

5. The Health Communicator’s Social Media Toolkit.

6. WHO Strategic Communications Framework for effective communications.

In my home county of San Diego, school closure has meant some 800,000 children staying home.¹ Parents love and are committed to care for their children, but as these parents struggle with food insecurity and mass unemployment, local pediatricians are joining their national colleagues in worrying about rising rates of child abuse.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

The cost of child abuse is real and lifelong. According to a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, a quarter of kids who suffer abusive head trauma die. Of the survivors, nearly 70% “have some degree of lasting neurological impairment.”⁵

Given the potentially disastrous consequences of child abuse, we must stay vigilant about child abuse. In our own profession, we must educate trainees and update experienced pediatricians about suspecting child abuse and reporting. For example, child abuse can be suspected and reported based on telemedicine interactions. The burden of proof for reporting child abuse is only “reasonable suspicion,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In our communities, we must engage with local Child Welfare Services workers and educate them about sentinel injuries. And finally, in our practices, we must build families up with awareness, resources, and coping mechanisms to prevent abuse from happening in the first place.

Dr. Helen C. Wang, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, talks to parents about managing stress early and often. She says, “I start counseling families at the prenatal visit. I do talk to families about what they liked to do before children. What brought you joy? What communities do you spend time with? And what have you been doing now?”

It can be hard to reconcile prior hobbies with the current recommendations of social distancing. “Now it’s more ‘Do FaceTime’ and ‘Do Zoom’ and spend more time with your extended family,” says Dr. Wang.

By caring for themselves, parents can better protect their children from mistreatment and injury. Healthychildren.org, the parent-facing website of the AAP, offers several tips for parenting in times of stress.

In this unusual time of COVID-19, it is more important than ever to provide parents with suggestions and strategies that will help them – and their children – survive this health crisis. By educating ourselves and our communities about child abuse, we as pediatricians can fulfill our mandate in keeping kids healthy and thriving.
 

Dr. Parekh is a pediatric resident at University of California, San Diego. She has no financial disclosures. Email Dr. Parekh at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Early childhood age group in California. kidsdata.org.

2. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2020). Child Maltreatment 2018.

3. Hong Joe. “School closures lead to troubling drop in child abuse reports.” KPBS. 2020 Mar 27.

4. Pediatrics. 2013 Apr;131(4):701-7.

5. Pediatrics. 2020;145(4):e20200203.

In my home county of San Diego, school closure has meant some 800,000 children staying home.¹ Parents love and are committed to care for their children, but as these parents struggle with food insecurity and mass unemployment, local pediatricians are joining their national colleagues in worrying about rising rates of child abuse.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

The cost of child abuse is real and lifelong. According to a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, a quarter of kids who suffer abusive head trauma die. Of the survivors, nearly 70% “have some degree of lasting neurological impairment.”⁵

Given the potentially disastrous consequences of child abuse, we must stay vigilant about child abuse. In our own profession, we must educate trainees and update experienced pediatricians about suspecting child abuse and reporting. For example, child abuse can be suspected and reported based on telemedicine interactions. The burden of proof for reporting child abuse is only “reasonable suspicion,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In our communities, we must engage with local Child Welfare Services workers and educate them about sentinel injuries. And finally, in our practices, we must build families up with awareness, resources, and coping mechanisms to prevent abuse from happening in the first place.

Dr. Helen C. Wang, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, talks to parents about managing stress early and often. She says, “I start counseling families at the prenatal visit. I do talk to families about what they liked to do before children. What brought you joy? What communities do you spend time with? And what have you been doing now?”

It can be hard to reconcile prior hobbies with the current recommendations of social distancing. “Now it’s more ‘Do FaceTime’ and ‘Do Zoom’ and spend more time with your extended family,” says Dr. Wang.

By caring for themselves, parents can better protect their children from mistreatment and injury. Healthychildren.org, the parent-facing website of the AAP, offers several tips for parenting in times of stress.

In this unusual time of COVID-19, it is more important than ever to provide parents with suggestions and strategies that will help them – and their children – survive this health crisis. By educating ourselves and our communities about child abuse, we as pediatricians can fulfill our mandate in keeping kids healthy and thriving.
 

Dr. Parekh is a pediatric resident at University of California, San Diego. She has no financial disclosures. Email Dr. Parekh at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Early childhood age group in California. kidsdata.org.

2. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2020). Child Maltreatment 2018.

3. Hong Joe. “School closures lead to troubling drop in child abuse reports.” KPBS. 2020 Mar 27.

4. Pediatrics. 2013 Apr;131(4):701-7.

5. Pediatrics. 2020;145(4):e20200203.

In my home county of San Diego, school closure has meant some 800,000 children staying home.¹ Parents love and are committed to care for their children, but as these parents struggle with food insecurity and mass unemployment, local pediatricians are joining their national colleagues in worrying about rising rates of child abuse.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

The cost of child abuse is real and lifelong. According to a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, a quarter of kids who suffer abusive head trauma die. Of the survivors, nearly 70% “have some degree of lasting neurological impairment.”⁵

Given the potentially disastrous consequences of child abuse, we must stay vigilant about child abuse. In our own profession, we must educate trainees and update experienced pediatricians about suspecting child abuse and reporting. For example, child abuse can be suspected and reported based on telemedicine interactions. The burden of proof for reporting child abuse is only “reasonable suspicion,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In our communities, we must engage with local Child Welfare Services workers and educate them about sentinel injuries. And finally, in our practices, we must build families up with awareness, resources, and coping mechanisms to prevent abuse from happening in the first place.

Dr. Helen C. Wang, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, talks to parents about managing stress early and often. She says, “I start counseling families at the prenatal visit. I do talk to families about what they liked to do before children. What brought you joy? What communities do you spend time with? And what have you been doing now?”

It can be hard to reconcile prior hobbies with the current recommendations of social distancing. “Now it’s more ‘Do FaceTime’ and ‘Do Zoom’ and spend more time with your extended family,” says Dr. Wang.

By caring for themselves, parents can better protect their children from mistreatment and injury. Healthychildren.org, the parent-facing website of the AAP, offers several tips for parenting in times of stress.

In this unusual time of COVID-19, it is more important than ever to provide parents with suggestions and strategies that will help them – and their children – survive this health crisis. By educating ourselves and our communities about child abuse, we as pediatricians can fulfill our mandate in keeping kids healthy and thriving.
 

Dr. Parekh is a pediatric resident at University of California, San Diego. She has no financial disclosures. Email Dr. Parekh at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Early childhood age group in California. kidsdata.org.

2. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2020). Child Maltreatment 2018.

3. Hong Joe. “School closures lead to troubling drop in child abuse reports.” KPBS. 2020 Mar 27.

4. Pediatrics. 2013 Apr;131(4):701-7.

5. Pediatrics. 2020;145(4):e20200203.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

COVID-19 affects the physical, psychological, and social health of people around the world. In the United States, newly reported cases are rising at alarming rates.

As of early May, more than 1.3 million people were confirmed to be COVID-19 infected in the United States and more than 4 million cases were reported globally.¹

According to new internal projections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by June 1, the number of daily deaths could reach about 3,000. By the end of June, a draft CDC report projects that the United States will see 200,000 new cases each day.²

COVID-19 undeniably harms mental health. It gravely instills uncertainty and anxiety, sometimes compounded by the grief of losing loved ones and not being able to mourn those losses in traditional ways. The pandemic also has led to occupational and/or financial losses. Physical distancing and shelter-in-place practices make it even harder to cope with those stresses, although those practices mitigate the dangers. The fears tied to those practices are thought to be keeping some patients with health problems from seeking needed care from hospital EDs.³ In light of the mental health crisis emerging because of the profound impact of this pandemic on all aspects of life, clinicians should start working with public health and political leaders to develop plans to address these issues now.
 

Known impact of previous outbreaks

Previous disease outbreaks evidence a similar pattern of heightened anxiety as the patterns seen with COVID-19. For example, during the 2009 swine flu outbreak, 36 surveys of more than 3,000 participants in the United Kingdom found that 9.6%-32.9% of the participants were “very” or “fairly” worried about the possibility of contracting swine flu.⁴ The 1995 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo produced stigmatization tied to the illness. That outbreak provided many lessons for physicians.⁵

The metaphors ascribed to different diseases affect communities’ responses to it. The SARS virus has been particularly insidious and has been thought of as a “plague.”⁶ Epidemics of all kinds cause fears, not only of contracting the disease and dying, but also of social exclusion.⁷ The emotional responses to COVID-19 can precipitate anxiety, depression, insomnia, and somatic symptoms. Acute stress disorder, PTSD, substance use, and suicide can emerge from maladaptive defenses intended to cope with pandemics.^8,9

Repeated exposure to news media about the disease adds to theses stresss.¹⁰ Constant news consumption can result in panicky hoarding of resources, such as masks; gloves; first-aid kits; alcohol hand rubs; and daily necessities such as food, water, and toilet paper.
 

Who is most affected by outbreaks?

Those most affected after a disease outbreak are patients, their families, and medical personnel. In one study, researchers who conducted an online survey of 1,210 respondents in 194 cities in China during the early phase of the outbreak found that the psychological effects were worst among women, students, and vulnerable populations.¹¹

Meanwhile, a 2003 cross-sectional survey of 1,115 ethnic Chinese adults in Hong Kong who responded to the SARS outbreak found that the respondents most likely to heed precautionary measures against the infection were “older, female, more educated people as well as those with a positive contact history and SARS-like symptoms.”¹²

Negative mental health consequences of a disease outbreak might persist long after the infection has dissipated. An increased association has been found between people with mental illness and posttraumatic stress following many disasters.^13,14,15

Political and health care leaders should develop plans aimed at helping people copewith pandemics.¹⁶ Such strategies should include prioritizing treatment of the physical and mental health needs of patients infected with COVID-19 and of the general population. Screening for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts ought to be implemented, and specialized psychiatric care teams should be assigned.¹⁷ We know that psychiatrists and other physicians turned to telemedicine to provide support, psychotherapy, and medical attention to patients soon after physical distancing measures were put into place. Those kinds of quick responses are important for our patients.

Fear of contagious diseases often creates social divisions. Governments should offer accurate information to reduce the detrimental effect of rumors and false propaganda.¹⁸ “Social distancing” is a misleading term; these practices should be referred to as “physical distancing.” We should encourage patients to maintain interpersonal contacts – albeit at a distance – to reach out to those in need, and to support one another during these troubled times.¹⁹

References

1. World Health Organization. Situation Report–107. 2020 May 6.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Situation Update. 2020 Apr 30.

3. O’Brien M. “Are Americans in medical crisis avoiding the ER due to coronavirus?” PBS Newshour. 2020 May 6.

4. Rubin G et al. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jul;14(340):183-266.

5. Hall R et al. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):466-52.

6. Verghese A. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:932-3.

7. Interagency Standing Committee. Briefing note on addressing health and psychosocial aspects of COVID-19 Outbreak – Version 11. 2020 Feb.

8. Sim K et al. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68:195-202.

9. Shigemura J et al. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74:281-2.

10. Garfin DR et al. Health Psychol. 2020 May;39(5):355-7.

11. Wang C et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.3390/ijerph1751729.

12. Leung GM et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Nov;57(1):857-63.

13. Xiang Y et al. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16:1741-4.

14. Alvarez J, Hunt M. J Trauma Stress. 2005 Oct 18(5);18:497-505.

15. Cukor J et al. Depress Anxiety. 2011 Mar;28(3):210-7.

16. Horton R. Lancet. 2020 Feb;395(10222):400.

17. Xiang Y-T et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 4;7:228-9.

18. World Health Organization. “Rational use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for coronavirus (COVID-19).” Interim Guidance. 2020 Mar.

19. Brooks S et al. Lancet 2020 Mar 14;395:912-20.