COVID-19 Updates

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

Patients treated with infliximab for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) showed significantly reduced response to COVID-19 antibodies, compared with those treated with vedolizumab, according to data from nearly 7,000 patients.

Although anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs are routinely used for patients with IBD, the impact of their immune-suppressing properties on protective immunity to COVID-19 is unknown, wrote Nicholas A. Kennedy, MD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues. These drugs have been reported to impair protective immunity following vaccines for other diseases, such as those for influenza and viral hepatitis.

“By suppressing immune responses, biological and immunosuppression therapies may lead to chronic SARS-CoV-2 infection and have recently been implicated in the evolution and emergence of novel variants,” they noted, citing a study published in Cell.

In the current study, published in Gut, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to identify 6,935 patients with IBD aged 5 years and older seen at 92 hospitals in the United Kingdom between Sept. 22, 2020, and Dec. 23, 2020. Of these, 4,685 were treated with infliximab, and 2,250 received vedolizumab. The proportion of study participants with a positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody test was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including proportion with positive antibodies following positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and the magnitude of antibody reactivity.

Substantial seroprevalence differences seen

Overall, rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization were similar between infliximab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients with IBD. However, seroprevalence was significantly lower in the infliximab group, compared with the vedolizumab group (3.4% vs. 6.0%; P < .0001). In addition, infliximab and immunomodulator use were each independently associated with lower seropositivity, compared with vedolizumab (odds ratio, 0.66 for infliximab and OR, 0.70 for immunomodulators) in a multivariate analysis.

In a sensitivity analysis, 39 of 81 infliximab-treated patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 infection seroconverted (48%), compared with 30 of 36 vedolizumab-treated patients (83%) (P < .00044). Infliximab-treated patients with confirmed infections also showed a lower magnitude of anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity, compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (P < .0001).

From a clinical perspective, the lower seroconversion rates and reduced levels of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity might increase susceptibility to recurrent COVID-19 infections in infliximab-treated IBD patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the impaired serological responses might promote chronic nasopharyngeal colonization and consequently promote the development of COVID-19 variants and drive persistent transmission, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of knowledge on the impact of attenuated immune response on infection risk, the potential for recall bias associated with patient reports, and the focus on infliximab only, the researchers pointed out. However, the key findings are likely apply to other anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies including adalimumab, certolizumab and golimumab, they suggested.

The study was strengthened by the recruitment of a large number of patients in a narrow time frame and comprehensive collection of data on patient-reported outcomes, COVID-19 testing, and serological assay results, the researchers said. Overall, the findings support the public health value of serological testing and virus surveillance to identify suboptimal vaccine response and to consider implications for practice, they added. “If attenuated serological responses following vaccination are also observed, then modified immunization strategies will need to be designed for millions of patients worldwide,” they emphasized.

Findings inform clinical practice and public health

The study is very important for many reasons, said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, PhD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in an interview. “It is known that there is decreased responsiveness to a number of routine vaccinations in IBD patients on immune active therapy. In terms of SARS-CoV-2, development of an immune response with infection is important in terms of severity of infection, reinfection, and possibly limiting spread of infection in this patient population,” she said. “Looking at both serum seroconversion and reactivity of immune response in patients with known SARS-CoV-2 infection will help to define clinical and public health guidance, and also may be predictive as to what might happen with SARS-CoV-2 immunization based on background biologic or immunosuppressant therapy,” she noted.

Dr. Isaacs said that she was not surprised by the study findings. “Anti-TNF, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy are all thought to be systemically active and likely to suppress the immune response to infection and vaccination,” she said. Vedolizumab, on the other hand, is thought to be less systemically active and clinically is associated with fewer serious infections.

Data will drive patient counseling 

“These results affect counseling of IBD patients on immune active therapy who have had a SARS-CoV-2 infection,” said Dr. Isaacs. “They should be made aware that infection does not indicate protection for further infection. Although the issues that are raised in this study are of concern, patients should not have clinically beneficial therapy discontinued or switched based on these results,” she said.

“Additional research is needed to determine what the seroconversion rate is with the currently available immunizations for SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Isaacs. More questions to address include whether there are differences in the different products available, whether immunization after SARS-CoV-2 infection improves both seroconversion and immune reactivity, and whether there is any benefit to transiently stopping dual immune active therapy during the time of immunization, she said.

Further studies can fill knowledge gaps

“There is a knowledge gap in our understanding of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with IBD who have previously been infected,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, MS, staff physician and research scientist in the inflammatory bowel disease program at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor (Mich.) Healthcare System, said in an interview. ”This is a first step in beginning to narrow this gap – to provide patients and providers with data to drive recommendations during this COVID-19 pandemic.”

She added that, while further work needs to be done, the study findings do support potential benefit for ongoing vigilance among patients receiving infliximab for IBD. “The study findings also drive us to seek answers to more questions: For example, should we consider serological testing for patients on infliximab? How does the presence or absence of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies associate with susceptibility to infection for patients with infliximab?

“Further studies examining anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity are necessary to better understand antibody responses between patients with IBD to the general population, or between patients on immunosuppressive therapy and the general population,” she said. “Observational studies are also not designed to examine the causal relationship between infections, medications, and antibody responses. There may be some inherent differences to patients who receive infliximab as compared to vedolizumab for IBD.”

The study was supported by Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, and the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors disclosed financial and nonfinancial relationships with numerous companies, including AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Immundiagnostik, as well as Janssen, who markets infliximab, and Takeda, who markets vedolizumab. Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/31/21.

Patients treated with infliximab for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) showed significantly reduced response to COVID-19 antibodies, compared with those treated with vedolizumab, according to data from nearly 7,000 patients.

Although anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs are routinely used for patients with IBD, the impact of their immune-suppressing properties on protective immunity to COVID-19 is unknown, wrote Nicholas A. Kennedy, MD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues. These drugs have been reported to impair protective immunity following vaccines for other diseases, such as those for influenza and viral hepatitis.

“By suppressing immune responses, biological and immunosuppression therapies may lead to chronic SARS-CoV-2 infection and have recently been implicated in the evolution and emergence of novel variants,” they noted, citing a study published in Cell.

In the current study, published in Gut, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to identify 6,935 patients with IBD aged 5 years and older seen at 92 hospitals in the United Kingdom between Sept. 22, 2020, and Dec. 23, 2020. Of these, 4,685 were treated with infliximab, and 2,250 received vedolizumab. The proportion of study participants with a positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody test was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including proportion with positive antibodies following positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and the magnitude of antibody reactivity.

Substantial seroprevalence differences seen

Overall, rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization were similar between infliximab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients with IBD. However, seroprevalence was significantly lower in the infliximab group, compared with the vedolizumab group (3.4% vs. 6.0%; P < .0001). In addition, infliximab and immunomodulator use were each independently associated with lower seropositivity, compared with vedolizumab (odds ratio, 0.66 for infliximab and OR, 0.70 for immunomodulators) in a multivariate analysis.

In a sensitivity analysis, 39 of 81 infliximab-treated patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 infection seroconverted (48%), compared with 30 of 36 vedolizumab-treated patients (83%) (P < .00044). Infliximab-treated patients with confirmed infections also showed a lower magnitude of anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity, compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (P < .0001).

From a clinical perspective, the lower seroconversion rates and reduced levels of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity might increase susceptibility to recurrent COVID-19 infections in infliximab-treated IBD patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the impaired serological responses might promote chronic nasopharyngeal colonization and consequently promote the development of COVID-19 variants and drive persistent transmission, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of knowledge on the impact of attenuated immune response on infection risk, the potential for recall bias associated with patient reports, and the focus on infliximab only, the researchers pointed out. However, the key findings are likely apply to other anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies including adalimumab, certolizumab and golimumab, they suggested.

The study was strengthened by the recruitment of a large number of patients in a narrow time frame and comprehensive collection of data on patient-reported outcomes, COVID-19 testing, and serological assay results, the researchers said. Overall, the findings support the public health value of serological testing and virus surveillance to identify suboptimal vaccine response and to consider implications for practice, they added. “If attenuated serological responses following vaccination are also observed, then modified immunization strategies will need to be designed for millions of patients worldwide,” they emphasized.

Findings inform clinical practice and public health

The study is very important for many reasons, said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, PhD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in an interview. “It is known that there is decreased responsiveness to a number of routine vaccinations in IBD patients on immune active therapy. In terms of SARS-CoV-2, development of an immune response with infection is important in terms of severity of infection, reinfection, and possibly limiting spread of infection in this patient population,” she said. “Looking at both serum seroconversion and reactivity of immune response in patients with known SARS-CoV-2 infection will help to define clinical and public health guidance, and also may be predictive as to what might happen with SARS-CoV-2 immunization based on background biologic or immunosuppressant therapy,” she noted.

Dr. Isaacs said that she was not surprised by the study findings. “Anti-TNF, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy are all thought to be systemically active and likely to suppress the immune response to infection and vaccination,” she said. Vedolizumab, on the other hand, is thought to be less systemically active and clinically is associated with fewer serious infections.

Data will drive patient counseling 

“These results affect counseling of IBD patients on immune active therapy who have had a SARS-CoV-2 infection,” said Dr. Isaacs. “They should be made aware that infection does not indicate protection for further infection. Although the issues that are raised in this study are of concern, patients should not have clinically beneficial therapy discontinued or switched based on these results,” she said.

“Additional research is needed to determine what the seroconversion rate is with the currently available immunizations for SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Isaacs. More questions to address include whether there are differences in the different products available, whether immunization after SARS-CoV-2 infection improves both seroconversion and immune reactivity, and whether there is any benefit to transiently stopping dual immune active therapy during the time of immunization, she said.

Further studies can fill knowledge gaps

“There is a knowledge gap in our understanding of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with IBD who have previously been infected,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, MS, staff physician and research scientist in the inflammatory bowel disease program at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor (Mich.) Healthcare System, said in an interview. ”This is a first step in beginning to narrow this gap – to provide patients and providers with data to drive recommendations during this COVID-19 pandemic.”

She added that, while further work needs to be done, the study findings do support potential benefit for ongoing vigilance among patients receiving infliximab for IBD. “The study findings also drive us to seek answers to more questions: For example, should we consider serological testing for patients on infliximab? How does the presence or absence of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies associate with susceptibility to infection for patients with infliximab?

“Further studies examining anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity are necessary to better understand antibody responses between patients with IBD to the general population, or between patients on immunosuppressive therapy and the general population,” she said. “Observational studies are also not designed to examine the causal relationship between infections, medications, and antibody responses. There may be some inherent differences to patients who receive infliximab as compared to vedolizumab for IBD.”

The study was supported by Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, and the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors disclosed financial and nonfinancial relationships with numerous companies, including AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Immundiagnostik, as well as Janssen, who markets infliximab, and Takeda, who markets vedolizumab. Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/31/21.

Patients treated with infliximab for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) showed significantly reduced response to COVID-19 antibodies, compared with those treated with vedolizumab, according to data from nearly 7,000 patients.

Although anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs are routinely used for patients with IBD, the impact of their immune-suppressing properties on protective immunity to COVID-19 is unknown, wrote Nicholas A. Kennedy, MD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues. These drugs have been reported to impair protective immunity following vaccines for other diseases, such as those for influenza and viral hepatitis.

“By suppressing immune responses, biological and immunosuppression therapies may lead to chronic SARS-CoV-2 infection and have recently been implicated in the evolution and emergence of novel variants,” they noted, citing a study published in Cell.

In the current study, published in Gut, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to identify 6,935 patients with IBD aged 5 years and older seen at 92 hospitals in the United Kingdom between Sept. 22, 2020, and Dec. 23, 2020. Of these, 4,685 were treated with infliximab, and 2,250 received vedolizumab. The proportion of study participants with a positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody test was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including proportion with positive antibodies following positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and the magnitude of antibody reactivity.

Substantial seroprevalence differences seen

Overall, rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization were similar between infliximab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients with IBD. However, seroprevalence was significantly lower in the infliximab group, compared with the vedolizumab group (3.4% vs. 6.0%; P < .0001). In addition, infliximab and immunomodulator use were each independently associated with lower seropositivity, compared with vedolizumab (odds ratio, 0.66 for infliximab and OR, 0.70 for immunomodulators) in a multivariate analysis.

In a sensitivity analysis, 39 of 81 infliximab-treated patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 infection seroconverted (48%), compared with 30 of 36 vedolizumab-treated patients (83%) (P < .00044). Infliximab-treated patients with confirmed infections also showed a lower magnitude of anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity, compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (P < .0001).

From a clinical perspective, the lower seroconversion rates and reduced levels of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity might increase susceptibility to recurrent COVID-19 infections in infliximab-treated IBD patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the impaired serological responses might promote chronic nasopharyngeal colonization and consequently promote the development of COVID-19 variants and drive persistent transmission, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of knowledge on the impact of attenuated immune response on infection risk, the potential for recall bias associated with patient reports, and the focus on infliximab only, the researchers pointed out. However, the key findings are likely apply to other anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies including adalimumab, certolizumab and golimumab, they suggested.

The study was strengthened by the recruitment of a large number of patients in a narrow time frame and comprehensive collection of data on patient-reported outcomes, COVID-19 testing, and serological assay results, the researchers said. Overall, the findings support the public health value of serological testing and virus surveillance to identify suboptimal vaccine response and to consider implications for practice, they added. “If attenuated serological responses following vaccination are also observed, then modified immunization strategies will need to be designed for millions of patients worldwide,” they emphasized.

Findings inform clinical practice and public health

The study is very important for many reasons, said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, PhD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in an interview. “It is known that there is decreased responsiveness to a number of routine vaccinations in IBD patients on immune active therapy. In terms of SARS-CoV-2, development of an immune response with infection is important in terms of severity of infection, reinfection, and possibly limiting spread of infection in this patient population,” she said. “Looking at both serum seroconversion and reactivity of immune response in patients with known SARS-CoV-2 infection will help to define clinical and public health guidance, and also may be predictive as to what might happen with SARS-CoV-2 immunization based on background biologic or immunosuppressant therapy,” she noted.

Dr. Isaacs said that she was not surprised by the study findings. “Anti-TNF, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy are all thought to be systemically active and likely to suppress the immune response to infection and vaccination,” she said. Vedolizumab, on the other hand, is thought to be less systemically active and clinically is associated with fewer serious infections.

Data will drive patient counseling 

“These results affect counseling of IBD patients on immune active therapy who have had a SARS-CoV-2 infection,” said Dr. Isaacs. “They should be made aware that infection does not indicate protection for further infection. Although the issues that are raised in this study are of concern, patients should not have clinically beneficial therapy discontinued or switched based on these results,” she said.

“Additional research is needed to determine what the seroconversion rate is with the currently available immunizations for SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Isaacs. More questions to address include whether there are differences in the different products available, whether immunization after SARS-CoV-2 infection improves both seroconversion and immune reactivity, and whether there is any benefit to transiently stopping dual immune active therapy during the time of immunization, she said.

Further studies can fill knowledge gaps

“There is a knowledge gap in our understanding of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with IBD who have previously been infected,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, MS, staff physician and research scientist in the inflammatory bowel disease program at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor (Mich.) Healthcare System, said in an interview. ”This is a first step in beginning to narrow this gap – to provide patients and providers with data to drive recommendations during this COVID-19 pandemic.”

She added that, while further work needs to be done, the study findings do support potential benefit for ongoing vigilance among patients receiving infliximab for IBD. “The study findings also drive us to seek answers to more questions: For example, should we consider serological testing for patients on infliximab? How does the presence or absence of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies associate with susceptibility to infection for patients with infliximab?

“Further studies examining anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity are necessary to better understand antibody responses between patients with IBD to the general population, or between patients on immunosuppressive therapy and the general population,” she said. “Observational studies are also not designed to examine the causal relationship between infections, medications, and antibody responses. There may be some inherent differences to patients who receive infliximab as compared to vedolizumab for IBD.”

The study was supported by Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, and the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors disclosed financial and nonfinancial relationships with numerous companies, including AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Immundiagnostik, as well as Janssen, who markets infliximab, and Takeda, who markets vedolizumab. Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/31/21.

Postintubation laryngeal and tracheal injuries may be yet another part of recovery from severe COVID-19 infection for some patients.

Evidence has been accumulating on the link between prolonged intubation and lingering breathing and speaking difficulties, a concern that has become more germane in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, researchers in Italy led by Giacomo Fiacchini, MD, and Luca Bruschini, MD, of the University of Pisa have published new research suggesting tracheal complications were particularly common in COVID-19 patients intubated for prolonged periods during the pandemic.

The study may be revealing effects of the pandemic itself, as resources and staff were at times overwhelmed by critical care patients. Of the 98 patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 47% intubated for longer than 14 days developed full-thickness tracheal lesions, compared with 2.2% of a control group treated during the same time frame in 2019. The difference is eye-popping, but may not be generalizable. “I have not observed an increased rate of tracheal injury, but we haven’t carefully studied that outcome as far as I know,” said Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, who is a senior staff physician and director of the pulmonary inpatient unit at Henry Ford Health System, and an associate professor at Wayne State University, Detroit.

He expressed concern about the retrospective nature of the study, and wondered if the different outcomes might be because of disruptions caused by the pandemic. “It’s not hard to imagine that these patients were seen [during] a great rush of patients, whereas the control group was looked at during a period where that kind of volume didn’t exist. There might have been a tendency for more inexperienced practitioners to be intubating patients because they were in the middle of the epidemic. There might have been less supervision of trainees. Individuals, physicians, teams may have been more rushed. Protocols may not have been followed as closely. It may all be an effect of the epidemic itself,” said Dr. Ouellette.

The investigators suggested that implementation of pronation maneuvers may have increased cuff pressure on the tracheal walls leading to some injuries. In addition, the prothrombotic and antifibrinolytic state of patients with COVID-19 may have contributed, along with the impact of systemic steroids that may have altered normal healing of tracheal wall microwounds caused by intubation, cuff pressure, or tracheostomy.

Other research has suggested increased complications from intubation among COVID-19 patients, including a case series that found heightened frequency of pneumomediastinum. The authors of that study suggested that aggressive disease pathophysiology and accompanying risk of alveolar damage and tracheobronchial injury may be to blame, along with larger-bore tracheal tubes and higher ventilation pressures. That study may also be reflecting the conditions of intubation during the pandemic.

Not all institutions saw an uptick in tracheal injury or pneumomediastinum. Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Springfield, asked one of the institute’s statisticians to examine pneumothorax frequency from March 15, 2020, to March 1, 2021, comparing the rates between patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of admission, and those who tested negative. The rate was 0.5% in patients who tested positive versus 0.4% in those who tested negative. “My division chief’s gut sense is it’s just the same. The prevalence [of pneumomediastinum] is what we were seeing before,” said Dr. Farmer.

Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center found that more than half of patients undergoing prolonged intubation experience breathing and speaking difficulties at 10 weeks post intubation. The group has followed up that study with another study looking at treatment timing and outcomes.

The researchers reviewed the experiences of 29 patients with laryngeal injury from endotracheal intubation between May 1, 2014,- and June 1, 2018. Ten patients with posterior glottis injury received early treatment, at a median of 34.7 days to presentation (interquartile range, 1.5-44.8 days). Nineteen patients with posterior glottis stenosis received treatment at a median of 341.9 days (absolute difference, 307.2 days; 95% confidence interval, 124.4-523.3 days). Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. At last follow-up, 90% of the early-treatment group were decannulated, compared with 58% of the late group (absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI, –3% to 68%). The early group required a mean of 2.2 interventions, compared with 11.5 in the late group (absolute difference, 9.3; 95% CI, 6.4-12.1). No patients in the early group required an open procedure, compared with 90% of the late-treatment group.

Although early treatment seems promising, the timing of laryngeal injury repair would be a key consideration. “You would worry about patient stability, [making] sure they’re clinically stable and didn’t have any acute ill effects from the injury itself or the underlying illness that led to intubation,” said Dr. Ouellette. For COVID-19 patients, that would mean recovery from pneumonia or any other lung problems, he added.

Together, the studies raise concerns and questions over tracheal and laryngeal injury in the context of COVID-19, but fall short of providing clinical guidance. “It raises the awareness in the mind of the critical care physician about these potential injuries to the larynx surrounding intubation,” said Dr. Farmer.

The studies received no funding. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Postintubation laryngeal and tracheal injuries may be yet another part of recovery from severe COVID-19 infection for some patients.

Evidence has been accumulating on the link between prolonged intubation and lingering breathing and speaking difficulties, a concern that has become more germane in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, researchers in Italy led by Giacomo Fiacchini, MD, and Luca Bruschini, MD, of the University of Pisa have published new research suggesting tracheal complications were particularly common in COVID-19 patients intubated for prolonged periods during the pandemic.

The study may be revealing effects of the pandemic itself, as resources and staff were at times overwhelmed by critical care patients. Of the 98 patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 47% intubated for longer than 14 days developed full-thickness tracheal lesions, compared with 2.2% of a control group treated during the same time frame in 2019. The difference is eye-popping, but may not be generalizable. “I have not observed an increased rate of tracheal injury, but we haven’t carefully studied that outcome as far as I know,” said Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, who is a senior staff physician and director of the pulmonary inpatient unit at Henry Ford Health System, and an associate professor at Wayne State University, Detroit.

He expressed concern about the retrospective nature of the study, and wondered if the different outcomes might be because of disruptions caused by the pandemic. “It’s not hard to imagine that these patients were seen [during] a great rush of patients, whereas the control group was looked at during a period where that kind of volume didn’t exist. There might have been a tendency for more inexperienced practitioners to be intubating patients because they were in the middle of the epidemic. There might have been less supervision of trainees. Individuals, physicians, teams may have been more rushed. Protocols may not have been followed as closely. It may all be an effect of the epidemic itself,” said Dr. Ouellette.

The investigators suggested that implementation of pronation maneuvers may have increased cuff pressure on the tracheal walls leading to some injuries. In addition, the prothrombotic and antifibrinolytic state of patients with COVID-19 may have contributed, along with the impact of systemic steroids that may have altered normal healing of tracheal wall microwounds caused by intubation, cuff pressure, or tracheostomy.

Other research has suggested increased complications from intubation among COVID-19 patients, including a case series that found heightened frequency of pneumomediastinum. The authors of that study suggested that aggressive disease pathophysiology and accompanying risk of alveolar damage and tracheobronchial injury may be to blame, along with larger-bore tracheal tubes and higher ventilation pressures. That study may also be reflecting the conditions of intubation during the pandemic.

Not all institutions saw an uptick in tracheal injury or pneumomediastinum. Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Springfield, asked one of the institute’s statisticians to examine pneumothorax frequency from March 15, 2020, to March 1, 2021, comparing the rates between patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of admission, and those who tested negative. The rate was 0.5% in patients who tested positive versus 0.4% in those who tested negative. “My division chief’s gut sense is it’s just the same. The prevalence [of pneumomediastinum] is what we were seeing before,” said Dr. Farmer.

Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center found that more than half of patients undergoing prolonged intubation experience breathing and speaking difficulties at 10 weeks post intubation. The group has followed up that study with another study looking at treatment timing and outcomes.

The researchers reviewed the experiences of 29 patients with laryngeal injury from endotracheal intubation between May 1, 2014,- and June 1, 2018. Ten patients with posterior glottis injury received early treatment, at a median of 34.7 days to presentation (interquartile range, 1.5-44.8 days). Nineteen patients with posterior glottis stenosis received treatment at a median of 341.9 days (absolute difference, 307.2 days; 95% confidence interval, 124.4-523.3 days). Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. At last follow-up, 90% of the early-treatment group were decannulated, compared with 58% of the late group (absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI, –3% to 68%). The early group required a mean of 2.2 interventions, compared with 11.5 in the late group (absolute difference, 9.3; 95% CI, 6.4-12.1). No patients in the early group required an open procedure, compared with 90% of the late-treatment group.

Although early treatment seems promising, the timing of laryngeal injury repair would be a key consideration. “You would worry about patient stability, [making] sure they’re clinically stable and didn’t have any acute ill effects from the injury itself or the underlying illness that led to intubation,” said Dr. Ouellette. For COVID-19 patients, that would mean recovery from pneumonia or any other lung problems, he added.

Together, the studies raise concerns and questions over tracheal and laryngeal injury in the context of COVID-19, but fall short of providing clinical guidance. “It raises the awareness in the mind of the critical care physician about these potential injuries to the larynx surrounding intubation,” said Dr. Farmer.

The studies received no funding. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Postintubation laryngeal and tracheal injuries may be yet another part of recovery from severe COVID-19 infection for some patients.

Evidence has been accumulating on the link between prolonged intubation and lingering breathing and speaking difficulties, a concern that has become more germane in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, researchers in Italy led by Giacomo Fiacchini, MD, and Luca Bruschini, MD, of the University of Pisa have published new research suggesting tracheal complications were particularly common in COVID-19 patients intubated for prolonged periods during the pandemic.

The study may be revealing effects of the pandemic itself, as resources and staff were at times overwhelmed by critical care patients. Of the 98 patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 47% intubated for longer than 14 days developed full-thickness tracheal lesions, compared with 2.2% of a control group treated during the same time frame in 2019. The difference is eye-popping, but may not be generalizable. “I have not observed an increased rate of tracheal injury, but we haven’t carefully studied that outcome as far as I know,” said Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, who is a senior staff physician and director of the pulmonary inpatient unit at Henry Ford Health System, and an associate professor at Wayne State University, Detroit.

He expressed concern about the retrospective nature of the study, and wondered if the different outcomes might be because of disruptions caused by the pandemic. “It’s not hard to imagine that these patients were seen [during] a great rush of patients, whereas the control group was looked at during a period where that kind of volume didn’t exist. There might have been a tendency for more inexperienced practitioners to be intubating patients because they were in the middle of the epidemic. There might have been less supervision of trainees. Individuals, physicians, teams may have been more rushed. Protocols may not have been followed as closely. It may all be an effect of the epidemic itself,” said Dr. Ouellette.

The investigators suggested that implementation of pronation maneuvers may have increased cuff pressure on the tracheal walls leading to some injuries. In addition, the prothrombotic and antifibrinolytic state of patients with COVID-19 may have contributed, along with the impact of systemic steroids that may have altered normal healing of tracheal wall microwounds caused by intubation, cuff pressure, or tracheostomy.

Other research has suggested increased complications from intubation among COVID-19 patients, including a case series that found heightened frequency of pneumomediastinum. The authors of that study suggested that aggressive disease pathophysiology and accompanying risk of alveolar damage and tracheobronchial injury may be to blame, along with larger-bore tracheal tubes and higher ventilation pressures. That study may also be reflecting the conditions of intubation during the pandemic.

Not all institutions saw an uptick in tracheal injury or pneumomediastinum. Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Springfield, asked one of the institute’s statisticians to examine pneumothorax frequency from March 15, 2020, to March 1, 2021, comparing the rates between patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of admission, and those who tested negative. The rate was 0.5% in patients who tested positive versus 0.4% in those who tested negative. “My division chief’s gut sense is it’s just the same. The prevalence [of pneumomediastinum] is what we were seeing before,” said Dr. Farmer.

Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center found that more than half of patients undergoing prolonged intubation experience breathing and speaking difficulties at 10 weeks post intubation. The group has followed up that study with another study looking at treatment timing and outcomes.

The researchers reviewed the experiences of 29 patients with laryngeal injury from endotracheal intubation between May 1, 2014,- and June 1, 2018. Ten patients with posterior glottis injury received early treatment, at a median of 34.7 days to presentation (interquartile range, 1.5-44.8 days). Nineteen patients with posterior glottis stenosis received treatment at a median of 341.9 days (absolute difference, 307.2 days; 95% confidence interval, 124.4-523.3 days). Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. At last follow-up, 90% of the early-treatment group were decannulated, compared with 58% of the late group (absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI, –3% to 68%). The early group required a mean of 2.2 interventions, compared with 11.5 in the late group (absolute difference, 9.3; 95% CI, 6.4-12.1). No patients in the early group required an open procedure, compared with 90% of the late-treatment group.

Although early treatment seems promising, the timing of laryngeal injury repair would be a key consideration. “You would worry about patient stability, [making] sure they’re clinically stable and didn’t have any acute ill effects from the injury itself or the underlying illness that led to intubation,” said Dr. Ouellette. For COVID-19 patients, that would mean recovery from pneumonia or any other lung problems, he added.

Together, the studies raise concerns and questions over tracheal and laryngeal injury in the context of COVID-19, but fall short of providing clinical guidance. “It raises the awareness in the mind of the critical care physician about these potential injuries to the larynx surrounding intubation,” said Dr. Farmer.

The studies received no funding. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.

After declining for 8 consecutive weeks, new cases of COVID-19 rose among children in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

A total of 57,078 new cases were reported in children during the week of March 12-18, compared with 52,695 for the previous week, ending a streak of declines going back to mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Also up for the week was the proportion of all cases occurring in children. The 57,000-plus cases represented 18.7% of the total (304,610) for all ages, and that is the largest share of the new-case burden for the entire pandemic. The previous high, 18.0%, came just 2 weeks earlier, based on data collected from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Speaking of the entire pandemic, the total number of COVID-19 cases in children is over 3.34 million, and that represents 13.3% of cases among all ages in the United States. The cumulative rate of infection as of March 18 was 4,440 cases per 100,000 children, up from 4,364 per 100,000 a week earlier, the AAP and CHA said.

At the state level, Vermont has now passed the 20% mark (20.1%, to be exact) for children’s proportion of cases and is higher in that measure than any other state. The highest rate of infection (8,763 cases per 100,000) can be found in North Dakota, the AAP/CHA data show.

There were only two new coronavirus-related deaths during the week of March 12-18 after Kansas revised its mortality data, bringing the total to 268 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting deaths by age, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After declining for 8 consecutive weeks, new cases of COVID-19 rose among children in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

A total of 57,078 new cases were reported in children during the week of March 12-18, compared with 52,695 for the previous week, ending a streak of declines going back to mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Also up for the week was the proportion of all cases occurring in children. The 57,000-plus cases represented 18.7% of the total (304,610) for all ages, and that is the largest share of the new-case burden for the entire pandemic. The previous high, 18.0%, came just 2 weeks earlier, based on data collected from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Speaking of the entire pandemic, the total number of COVID-19 cases in children is over 3.34 million, and that represents 13.3% of cases among all ages in the United States. The cumulative rate of infection as of March 18 was 4,440 cases per 100,000 children, up from 4,364 per 100,000 a week earlier, the AAP and CHA said.

At the state level, Vermont has now passed the 20% mark (20.1%, to be exact) for children’s proportion of cases and is higher in that measure than any other state. The highest rate of infection (8,763 cases per 100,000) can be found in North Dakota, the AAP/CHA data show.

There were only two new coronavirus-related deaths during the week of March 12-18 after Kansas revised its mortality data, bringing the total to 268 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting deaths by age, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After declining for 8 consecutive weeks, new cases of COVID-19 rose among children in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

A total of 57,078 new cases were reported in children during the week of March 12-18, compared with 52,695 for the previous week, ending a streak of declines going back to mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Also up for the week was the proportion of all cases occurring in children. The 57,000-plus cases represented 18.7% of the total (304,610) for all ages, and that is the largest share of the new-case burden for the entire pandemic. The previous high, 18.0%, came just 2 weeks earlier, based on data collected from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Speaking of the entire pandemic, the total number of COVID-19 cases in children is over 3.34 million, and that represents 13.3% of cases among all ages in the United States. The cumulative rate of infection as of March 18 was 4,440 cases per 100,000 children, up from 4,364 per 100,000 a week earlier, the AAP and CHA said.

At the state level, Vermont has now passed the 20% mark (20.1%, to be exact) for children’s proportion of cases and is higher in that measure than any other state. The highest rate of infection (8,763 cases per 100,000) can be found in North Dakota, the AAP/CHA data show.

There were only two new coronavirus-related deaths during the week of March 12-18 after Kansas revised its mortality data, bringing the total to 268 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting deaths by age, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Editor’s Note: With 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview mirror, we decided to check in with the Editorial Advisory Board members of Clinical Psychiatry News about the impact it has had on their practices and lives.

Redefining how to engage

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a wave of mental health problems in our population, such as general stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation, and these symptoms are exacerbated in mental health patients who are already struggling to cope with personal issues.

When the pandemic lockdown was announced in March 2020, many of my patients became overwhelmed and panicked at the idea of not being able to come to my office for in-person therapy. As an alternative, I started phone call sessions with my clients. These calls forced me to listen extra carefully to patient voice intonations to ascertain their true feelings, since I was unable to view the clients.

Soon thereafter, I transitioned to telemedicine over the Internet, and this visual helped me assess each patient. In addition, my patients became accustomed to telemedicine and embraced it once they saw me and were able to interact with me on the screen.

Although the pandemic disrupted my medical practice, it has redefined the way I can do therapy, as I can practice medicine from a distance. Telemedicine is time efficient for both my patients and me and it provides extreme social distancing, eliminating COVID-19 exposure between doctor and patient.

The pandemic has forced me to be adaptable and to recognize that, if you are open to changing habits, you can find a solution to any situation, including a pandemic.

Richard W. Cohen, MD
Private Practice
Philadelphia

Adjusting to fate

As it became clear in January 2020 that a pandemic was upon us, I made plans and prepared. I needed to remain healthy for my patients and my 102-year-old best friend, Doc.

I purchased PPE and 6 months’ of nonperishable groceries and toilet tissue from a commercial vendor. I made certain that Doc’s caregivers had what they needed to care for him and their families and preached to them, family, patients, and friends the public health guidelines of the day. Also, I needed to remain healthy for my patients who live in a dementia care facility, and I joined other workers there in being careful and proud that our facility remained COVID free.

By March 2020, I left my office, because it was in a building where both residents and staff were becoming ill with COVID. I started audio and video telemedicine as well as standing outside the windows of patients who only read lips and do not use digital technology. Under these new circumstances, patients (and Doc) revealed things about themselves that had remained hidden for decades. There was a sense of urgency and uncertainty.

I also started weekly COVID testing, at first at CVS and then in a public park. Doc, who had had congestive heart failure for 2 years, had celebrated his 103rd birthday in February, and continued to be a source of encouragement and support. We weathered through the spring and summer with him on lockdown in his senior residence. The dementia care facility remained free of COVID.

My plan had been to return to my office in July, however, the facility manager determined that they were not ready to receive my outpatients. I took on a short-term lease for August and was told I could return to my regular office Sept. 1, which I did.

On Aug. 31, 2020, Doc had a middle cerebral artery stroke. He received the clot buster within 40 minutes and was in surgery within 90 minutes. He regained consciousness and lucidity but would always have a left-sided disability. During his third postoperative day he was told that he would never again swallow properly, and he yanked out his nasogastric tube. He had always told me that he would not accept artificial feeding. M. Leslie Felmly, MD, a psychiatrist, died on Sept. 12, 2020, and I buried him beside his family in New Jersey, on Sept. 22, 2020.

After that, I needed routine and normalcy, and therefore, stayed out of work only on the day of Doc’s burial. I took on new patients and continued with my old patients. As the holidays neared I braced myself; for 26 years I had spent Thanksgiving and New Year’s with Doc and Christmas with my family in Texas. None of that was going to happen in 2020. My best female friend and her husband invited me to a socially distanced Thanksgiving meal with the two of them, and I accepted. Christmas and New Year’s I spent alone (I live alone and enjoy my company). Both of those holidays were made special because I spent the eve days at the dementia care facility.

I received my first Pfizer injection on Jan. 6, 2021. One day later, I went to a park to get COVID testing before I returned to the dementia care facility. There, I learned that I was COVID positive, and when I called into the dementia facility, I learned that one resident and several staff members had also tested positive. As I stood in the sunshine outside the testing facility I thought: “So, now what will I do with the rest of my life?”

I began to feel profoundly tired, and over time, developed what felt like a very bad head cold. I had no high temperature or difficulty breathing. Truly, the worst of it was the profound fatigue and the terrorizing fear that I would develop problems breathing. By Jan. 21, I had only symptoms of fatigue, and on the 23rd, I had a negative COVID test. I attributed my course and recovery to my whole-food plant-based diet and routine high-dose vitamin D₃ – in spite of my being an overweight, older African American woman. Through it all, I learned to ask for help, and one of my colleagues brought me a thermometer and 2 days of vegan Pho. I learned to be resourceful and ordered myself a fruit basket from Edible Arrangements when I was too fatigued to arrange deliveries by computer. I told Edible Arrangements that I was too weak to cut up a pineapple, and the manager included a cut-up pineapple in the box. I am grateful for the kindness of others.

I returned to work Jan. 25, and for most of each day, I feel better than I have ever felt in my adult life. It is amazing what 2 solid weeks can do for 50 years of arrears of sleep. The overwhelming fatigue was such that I could not not sleep. Thankfully, my remaining fatigue is less and less each day.

On Jan. 27, 2021, I received my second COVID vaccine injection and had no adverse reaction. Then on the 28th, I learned that my male cousin, who was just 6 months younger than I am, died of complications of COVID. Later, I learned that a resident of the dementia care facility had died from the same outbreak that had sickened me.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, I had tried so hard to remain healthy and COVID free and have my family, friends, and patients do the same. I planned, prepared, and executed but fate had other plans in store. Doc and my cousin are gone; I was exposed to COVID in my dementia care facility; and I know what matters for the rest of my life. I will continue to pursue and espouse health for me, my family, my friends, and my patients, and I will endeavor to be the best family member, friend, and physician that I can. To help with this, I remember the wise words of Dr. Felmly, “Your level of frustration will rise directly with your level of expectation” and “Above all else, remain flexible.” Going forward, I am reminded that I am not in charge; I am grateful for so many things; and I will continue to be as flexible as I can be.

Thelissa A. Harris, MD
Private Practice
Hartford, Conn.

Taking time for reflection

One year into the pandemic, I continue to learn to expect the unexpected, anticipate that things may not go as planned, accept that it is not business as usual, appreciate what I have, and focus on what is most important in my life – my family and most especially my children.

Despite the disruptions in our daily lives from the lockdowns, quarantines, and social distancing, my Catholic faith has grown stronger. I am not overly religious, but since the pandemic my children and I have attended online Mass regularly, sometimes in far away churches with different languages. It seems like we listen better now, reflect more on the homilies, and are really more in touch with our spirituality.

Professionally, I have seen the pandemic bring together geriatric psychiatrists from around the globe to tackle issues relevant to the mental health care of older adults. Within the International Psychogeriatric Association, we were spurred into collaborative actions with international colleagues in advocating for human rights of older adults in the context of the pandemic, creating online educational activities, and contributing to the special COVID-19 issue of the International Psychogeriatrics journal.

Maria I. Lapid, MD
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minn.

Concentrating on safety

The first year of the pandemic is over. How have my personal and professional goals changed? How has my life changed? Let us start with the latter.

I have been very lucky. I have continued to go into work at my hospital every day, which provides structure and socializing. My hospital has supplied PPE, although, like everywhere else, the rules keep changing.

Masks, face shield, goggles, etc.: I try to loop the mask around my earrings just right so it does not catch and pull the hooks off. I think the goggles make me look cool, like an ant man.

My world has narrowed to work and home. Like all of us, I no longer go to conferences. I do outpatient treatment from my office desk. I see inpatients from 6 feet away, in mask and goggles. The cookies I pass out are now individually wrapped. Takeout instead of restaurants. A new home gym.

I have learned a lot. I now know how to manage psychiatric wards where COVID clusters occur. How to transfer psychiatric patients who convert to COVID positive over to the medicine ward. I faithfully swab my own nose twice a week.

I am constantly saying (very nicely): “Please pull your mask up over your nose.” “Six feet apart, please.”

I saved my surgical masks in case I needed to reuse them. Fortunately, I did not. Now I have three overflowing drawers of masks. Plus, the heavy homemade cloth ones that friends and family sent.

Back to how have my goals changed? Basically they have not. I fix my eyes straight ahead and concentrate on safety. Safety of patients, staff, my family, myself.

And daily add another yellow, or blue, or white, surgical mask to the drawers.

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH
Washington

Awaiting project’s return

I had been actively involved in community service as the cofounder of The Bold Beauty Project since 2015. We are a Miami-based nonprofit, and we pair women with disabilities with volunteer photographers and create art shows. Our motto: Disability becomes Beauty becomes Art becomes Change.

I have dedicated about half of my time to the project, and it has been incredibly rewarding. It all came to a halt in March 2020, and it has left a real void in my daily schedule and my psyche. I am eagerly awaiting the return of the Bold Beauty Project with a renewed appreciation and enthusiasm. I hope you will check us out boldbeautyproject.com. If you are inspired to get involved, please contact me at evaritvomd@gmail.com.

Eva Ritvo, MD
Private Practice
Miami Beach, Fla.

Editor’s Note: With 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview mirror, we decided to check in with the Editorial Advisory Board members of Clinical Psychiatry News about the impact it has had on their practices and lives.

Redefining how to engage

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a wave of mental health problems in our population, such as general stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation, and these symptoms are exacerbated in mental health patients who are already struggling to cope with personal issues.

When the pandemic lockdown was announced in March 2020, many of my patients became overwhelmed and panicked at the idea of not being able to come to my office for in-person therapy. As an alternative, I started phone call sessions with my clients. These calls forced me to listen extra carefully to patient voice intonations to ascertain their true feelings, since I was unable to view the clients.

Soon thereafter, I transitioned to telemedicine over the Internet, and this visual helped me assess each patient. In addition, my patients became accustomed to telemedicine and embraced it once they saw me and were able to interact with me on the screen.

Although the pandemic disrupted my medical practice, it has redefined the way I can do therapy, as I can practice medicine from a distance. Telemedicine is time efficient for both my patients and me and it provides extreme social distancing, eliminating COVID-19 exposure between doctor and patient.

The pandemic has forced me to be adaptable and to recognize that, if you are open to changing habits, you can find a solution to any situation, including a pandemic.

Richard W. Cohen, MD
Private Practice
Philadelphia

Adjusting to fate

As it became clear in January 2020 that a pandemic was upon us, I made plans and prepared. I needed to remain healthy for my patients and my 102-year-old best friend, Doc.

I purchased PPE and 6 months’ of nonperishable groceries and toilet tissue from a commercial vendor. I made certain that Doc’s caregivers had what they needed to care for him and their families and preached to them, family, patients, and friends the public health guidelines of the day. Also, I needed to remain healthy for my patients who live in a dementia care facility, and I joined other workers there in being careful and proud that our facility remained COVID free.

By March 2020, I left my office, because it was in a building where both residents and staff were becoming ill with COVID. I started audio and video telemedicine as well as standing outside the windows of patients who only read lips and do not use digital technology. Under these new circumstances, patients (and Doc) revealed things about themselves that had remained hidden for decades. There was a sense of urgency and uncertainty.

I also started weekly COVID testing, at first at CVS and then in a public park. Doc, who had had congestive heart failure for 2 years, had celebrated his 103rd birthday in February, and continued to be a source of encouragement and support. We weathered through the spring and summer with him on lockdown in his senior residence. The dementia care facility remained free of COVID.

My plan had been to return to my office in July, however, the facility manager determined that they were not ready to receive my outpatients. I took on a short-term lease for August and was told I could return to my regular office Sept. 1, which I did.

On Aug. 31, 2020, Doc had a middle cerebral artery stroke. He received the clot buster within 40 minutes and was in surgery within 90 minutes. He regained consciousness and lucidity but would always have a left-sided disability. During his third postoperative day he was told that he would never again swallow properly, and he yanked out his nasogastric tube. He had always told me that he would not accept artificial feeding. M. Leslie Felmly, MD, a psychiatrist, died on Sept. 12, 2020, and I buried him beside his family in New Jersey, on Sept. 22, 2020.

After that, I needed routine and normalcy, and therefore, stayed out of work only on the day of Doc’s burial. I took on new patients and continued with my old patients. As the holidays neared I braced myself; for 26 years I had spent Thanksgiving and New Year’s with Doc and Christmas with my family in Texas. None of that was going to happen in 2020. My best female friend and her husband invited me to a socially distanced Thanksgiving meal with the two of them, and I accepted. Christmas and New Year’s I spent alone (I live alone and enjoy my company). Both of those holidays were made special because I spent the eve days at the dementia care facility.

I received my first Pfizer injection on Jan. 6, 2021. One day later, I went to a park to get COVID testing before I returned to the dementia care facility. There, I learned that I was COVID positive, and when I called into the dementia facility, I learned that one resident and several staff members had also tested positive. As I stood in the sunshine outside the testing facility I thought: “So, now what will I do with the rest of my life?”

I began to feel profoundly tired, and over time, developed what felt like a very bad head cold. I had no high temperature or difficulty breathing. Truly, the worst of it was the profound fatigue and the terrorizing fear that I would develop problems breathing. By Jan. 21, I had only symptoms of fatigue, and on the 23rd, I had a negative COVID test. I attributed my course and recovery to my whole-food plant-based diet and routine high-dose vitamin D₃ – in spite of my being an overweight, older African American woman. Through it all, I learned to ask for help, and one of my colleagues brought me a thermometer and 2 days of vegan Pho. I learned to be resourceful and ordered myself a fruit basket from Edible Arrangements when I was too fatigued to arrange deliveries by computer. I told Edible Arrangements that I was too weak to cut up a pineapple, and the manager included a cut-up pineapple in the box. I am grateful for the kindness of others.

I returned to work Jan. 25, and for most of each day, I feel better than I have ever felt in my adult life. It is amazing what 2 solid weeks can do for 50 years of arrears of sleep. The overwhelming fatigue was such that I could not not sleep. Thankfully, my remaining fatigue is less and less each day.

On Jan. 27, 2021, I received my second COVID vaccine injection and had no adverse reaction. Then on the 28th, I learned that my male cousin, who was just 6 months younger than I am, died of complications of COVID. Later, I learned that a resident of the dementia care facility had died from the same outbreak that had sickened me.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, I had tried so hard to remain healthy and COVID free and have my family, friends, and patients do the same. I planned, prepared, and executed but fate had other plans in store. Doc and my cousin are gone; I was exposed to COVID in my dementia care facility; and I know what matters for the rest of my life. I will continue to pursue and espouse health for me, my family, my friends, and my patients, and I will endeavor to be the best family member, friend, and physician that I can. To help with this, I remember the wise words of Dr. Felmly, “Your level of frustration will rise directly with your level of expectation” and “Above all else, remain flexible.” Going forward, I am reminded that I am not in charge; I am grateful for so many things; and I will continue to be as flexible as I can be.

Thelissa A. Harris, MD
Private Practice
Hartford, Conn.

Taking time for reflection

One year into the pandemic, I continue to learn to expect the unexpected, anticipate that things may not go as planned, accept that it is not business as usual, appreciate what I have, and focus on what is most important in my life – my family and most especially my children.

Despite the disruptions in our daily lives from the lockdowns, quarantines, and social distancing, my Catholic faith has grown stronger. I am not overly religious, but since the pandemic my children and I have attended online Mass regularly, sometimes in far away churches with different languages. It seems like we listen better now, reflect more on the homilies, and are really more in touch with our spirituality.

Professionally, I have seen the pandemic bring together geriatric psychiatrists from around the globe to tackle issues relevant to the mental health care of older adults. Within the International Psychogeriatric Association, we were spurred into collaborative actions with international colleagues in advocating for human rights of older adults in the context of the pandemic, creating online educational activities, and contributing to the special COVID-19 issue of the International Psychogeriatrics journal.

Maria I. Lapid, MD
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minn.

Concentrating on safety

The first year of the pandemic is over. How have my personal and professional goals changed? How has my life changed? Let us start with the latter.

I have been very lucky. I have continued to go into work at my hospital every day, which provides structure and socializing. My hospital has supplied PPE, although, like everywhere else, the rules keep changing.

Masks, face shield, goggles, etc.: I try to loop the mask around my earrings just right so it does not catch and pull the hooks off. I think the goggles make me look cool, like an ant man.

My world has narrowed to work and home. Like all of us, I no longer go to conferences. I do outpatient treatment from my office desk. I see inpatients from 6 feet away, in mask and goggles. The cookies I pass out are now individually wrapped. Takeout instead of restaurants. A new home gym.

I have learned a lot. I now know how to manage psychiatric wards where COVID clusters occur. How to transfer psychiatric patients who convert to COVID positive over to the medicine ward. I faithfully swab my own nose twice a week.

I am constantly saying (very nicely): “Please pull your mask up over your nose.” “Six feet apart, please.”

I saved my surgical masks in case I needed to reuse them. Fortunately, I did not. Now I have three overflowing drawers of masks. Plus, the heavy homemade cloth ones that friends and family sent.

Back to how have my goals changed? Basically they have not. I fix my eyes straight ahead and concentrate on safety. Safety of patients, staff, my family, myself.

And daily add another yellow, or blue, or white, surgical mask to the drawers.

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH
Washington

Awaiting project’s return

I had been actively involved in community service as the cofounder of The Bold Beauty Project since 2015. We are a Miami-based nonprofit, and we pair women with disabilities with volunteer photographers and create art shows. Our motto: Disability becomes Beauty becomes Art becomes Change.

I have dedicated about half of my time to the project, and it has been incredibly rewarding. It all came to a halt in March 2020, and it has left a real void in my daily schedule and my psyche. I am eagerly awaiting the return of the Bold Beauty Project with a renewed appreciation and enthusiasm. I hope you will check us out boldbeautyproject.com. If you are inspired to get involved, please contact me at evaritvomd@gmail.com.

Eva Ritvo, MD
Private Practice
Miami Beach, Fla.

Editor’s Note: With 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview mirror, we decided to check in with the Editorial Advisory Board members of Clinical Psychiatry News about the impact it has had on their practices and lives.

Redefining how to engage

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a wave of mental health problems in our population, such as general stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation, and these symptoms are exacerbated in mental health patients who are already struggling to cope with personal issues.

When the pandemic lockdown was announced in March 2020, many of my patients became overwhelmed and panicked at the idea of not being able to come to my office for in-person therapy. As an alternative, I started phone call sessions with my clients. These calls forced me to listen extra carefully to patient voice intonations to ascertain their true feelings, since I was unable to view the clients.

Soon thereafter, I transitioned to telemedicine over the Internet, and this visual helped me assess each patient. In addition, my patients became accustomed to telemedicine and embraced it once they saw me and were able to interact with me on the screen.

Although the pandemic disrupted my medical practice, it has redefined the way I can do therapy, as I can practice medicine from a distance. Telemedicine is time efficient for both my patients and me and it provides extreme social distancing, eliminating COVID-19 exposure between doctor and patient.

The pandemic has forced me to be adaptable and to recognize that, if you are open to changing habits, you can find a solution to any situation, including a pandemic.

Richard W. Cohen, MD
Private Practice
Philadelphia

Adjusting to fate

As it became clear in January 2020 that a pandemic was upon us, I made plans and prepared. I needed to remain healthy for my patients and my 102-year-old best friend, Doc.

I purchased PPE and 6 months’ of nonperishable groceries and toilet tissue from a commercial vendor. I made certain that Doc’s caregivers had what they needed to care for him and their families and preached to them, family, patients, and friends the public health guidelines of the day. Also, I needed to remain healthy for my patients who live in a dementia care facility, and I joined other workers there in being careful and proud that our facility remained COVID free.

By March 2020, I left my office, because it was in a building where both residents and staff were becoming ill with COVID. I started audio and video telemedicine as well as standing outside the windows of patients who only read lips and do not use digital technology. Under these new circumstances, patients (and Doc) revealed things about themselves that had remained hidden for decades. There was a sense of urgency and uncertainty.

I also started weekly COVID testing, at first at CVS and then in a public park. Doc, who had had congestive heart failure for 2 years, had celebrated his 103rd birthday in February, and continued to be a source of encouragement and support. We weathered through the spring and summer with him on lockdown in his senior residence. The dementia care facility remained free of COVID.

My plan had been to return to my office in July, however, the facility manager determined that they were not ready to receive my outpatients. I took on a short-term lease for August and was told I could return to my regular office Sept. 1, which I did.

On Aug. 31, 2020, Doc had a middle cerebral artery stroke. He received the clot buster within 40 minutes and was in surgery within 90 minutes. He regained consciousness and lucidity but would always have a left-sided disability. During his third postoperative day he was told that he would never again swallow properly, and he yanked out his nasogastric tube. He had always told me that he would not accept artificial feeding. M. Leslie Felmly, MD, a psychiatrist, died on Sept. 12, 2020, and I buried him beside his family in New Jersey, on Sept. 22, 2020.

After that, I needed routine and normalcy, and therefore, stayed out of work only on the day of Doc’s burial. I took on new patients and continued with my old patients. As the holidays neared I braced myself; for 26 years I had spent Thanksgiving and New Year’s with Doc and Christmas with my family in Texas. None of that was going to happen in 2020. My best female friend and her husband invited me to a socially distanced Thanksgiving meal with the two of them, and I accepted. Christmas and New Year’s I spent alone (I live alone and enjoy my company). Both of those holidays were made special because I spent the eve days at the dementia care facility.

I received my first Pfizer injection on Jan. 6, 2021. One day later, I went to a park to get COVID testing before I returned to the dementia care facility. There, I learned that I was COVID positive, and when I called into the dementia facility, I learned that one resident and several staff members had also tested positive. As I stood in the sunshine outside the testing facility I thought: “So, now what will I do with the rest of my life?”

I began to feel profoundly tired, and over time, developed what felt like a very bad head cold. I had no high temperature or difficulty breathing. Truly, the worst of it was the profound fatigue and the terrorizing fear that I would develop problems breathing. By Jan. 21, I had only symptoms of fatigue, and on the 23rd, I had a negative COVID test. I attributed my course and recovery to my whole-food plant-based diet and routine high-dose vitamin D₃ – in spite of my being an overweight, older African American woman. Through it all, I learned to ask for help, and one of my colleagues brought me a thermometer and 2 days of vegan Pho. I learned to be resourceful and ordered myself a fruit basket from Edible Arrangements when I was too fatigued to arrange deliveries by computer. I told Edible Arrangements that I was too weak to cut up a pineapple, and the manager included a cut-up pineapple in the box. I am grateful for the kindness of others.

I returned to work Jan. 25, and for most of each day, I feel better than I have ever felt in my adult life. It is amazing what 2 solid weeks can do for 50 years of arrears of sleep. The overwhelming fatigue was such that I could not not sleep. Thankfully, my remaining fatigue is less and less each day.

On Jan. 27, 2021, I received my second COVID vaccine injection and had no adverse reaction. Then on the 28th, I learned that my male cousin, who was just 6 months younger than I am, died of complications of COVID. Later, I learned that a resident of the dementia care facility had died from the same outbreak that had sickened me.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, I had tried so hard to remain healthy and COVID free and have my family, friends, and patients do the same. I planned, prepared, and executed but fate had other plans in store. Doc and my cousin are gone; I was exposed to COVID in my dementia care facility; and I know what matters for the rest of my life. I will continue to pursue and espouse health for me, my family, my friends, and my patients, and I will endeavor to be the best family member, friend, and physician that I can. To help with this, I remember the wise words of Dr. Felmly, “Your level of frustration will rise directly with your level of expectation” and “Above all else, remain flexible.” Going forward, I am reminded that I am not in charge; I am grateful for so many things; and I will continue to be as flexible as I can be.

Thelissa A. Harris, MD
Private Practice
Hartford, Conn.

Taking time for reflection

One year into the pandemic, I continue to learn to expect the unexpected, anticipate that things may not go as planned, accept that it is not business as usual, appreciate what I have, and focus on what is most important in my life – my family and most especially my children.

Despite the disruptions in our daily lives from the lockdowns, quarantines, and social distancing, my Catholic faith has grown stronger. I am not overly religious, but since the pandemic my children and I have attended online Mass regularly, sometimes in far away churches with different languages. It seems like we listen better now, reflect more on the homilies, and are really more in touch with our spirituality.

Professionally, I have seen the pandemic bring together geriatric psychiatrists from around the globe to tackle issues relevant to the mental health care of older adults. Within the International Psychogeriatric Association, we were spurred into collaborative actions with international colleagues in advocating for human rights of older adults in the context of the pandemic, creating online educational activities, and contributing to the special COVID-19 issue of the International Psychogeriatrics journal.

Maria I. Lapid, MD
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minn.

Concentrating on safety

The first year of the pandemic is over. How have my personal and professional goals changed? How has my life changed? Let us start with the latter.

I have been very lucky. I have continued to go into work at my hospital every day, which provides structure and socializing. My hospital has supplied PPE, although, like everywhere else, the rules keep changing.

Masks, face shield, goggles, etc.: I try to loop the mask around my earrings just right so it does not catch and pull the hooks off. I think the goggles make me look cool, like an ant man.

My world has narrowed to work and home. Like all of us, I no longer go to conferences. I do outpatient treatment from my office desk. I see inpatients from 6 feet away, in mask and goggles. The cookies I pass out are now individually wrapped. Takeout instead of restaurants. A new home gym.

I have learned a lot. I now know how to manage psychiatric wards where COVID clusters occur. How to transfer psychiatric patients who convert to COVID positive over to the medicine ward. I faithfully swab my own nose twice a week.

I am constantly saying (very nicely): “Please pull your mask up over your nose.” “Six feet apart, please.”

I saved my surgical masks in case I needed to reuse them. Fortunately, I did not. Now I have three overflowing drawers of masks. Plus, the heavy homemade cloth ones that friends and family sent.

Back to how have my goals changed? Basically they have not. I fix my eyes straight ahead and concentrate on safety. Safety of patients, staff, my family, myself.

And daily add another yellow, or blue, or white, surgical mask to the drawers.

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH
Washington

Awaiting project’s return

I had been actively involved in community service as the cofounder of The Bold Beauty Project since 2015. We are a Miami-based nonprofit, and we pair women with disabilities with volunteer photographers and create art shows. Our motto: Disability becomes Beauty becomes Art becomes Change.

I have dedicated about half of my time to the project, and it has been incredibly rewarding. It all came to a halt in March 2020, and it has left a real void in my daily schedule and my psyche. I am eagerly awaiting the return of the Bold Beauty Project with a renewed appreciation and enthusiasm. I hope you will check us out boldbeautyproject.com. If you are inspired to get involved, please contact me at evaritvomd@gmail.com.

Eva Ritvo, MD
Private Practice
Miami Beach, Fla.

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) face an almost 30% increased risk for COVID-19 compared with unaffected women, even after adjusting for cardiometabolic and other related factors, suggests an analysis of United Kingdom primary care data.

“Our research has highlighted that women with PCOS are an often overlooked and potentially high-risk population for contracting COVID-19,” said joint senior author Wiebke Arlt, MD, PhD, director of the Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research at the University of Birmingham (England), in a press release.

“Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, women with PCOS consistently report fragmented care, delayed diagnosis and a perception of poor clinician understanding of their condition,” added co-author Michael W. O’Reilly, MD, PhD, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin.

“Women suffering from this condition may fear, with some degree of justification, that an enhanced risk of COVID-19 infection will further compromise timely access to health care and serve to increase the sense of disenfranchisement currently experienced by many patients,” he added.

Consequently, “these findings need to be considered when designing public health policy and advice as our understanding of COVID-19 evolves,” noted first author Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD Student, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham.

The research was published by the European Journal of Endocrinology on March 9.
 

Women with PCOS: A distinct subgroup?

PCOS, which is thought to affect up to 16% of women, is associated with a significantly increased risk for type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease, all which have been linked to more severe COVID-19.

The condition is more prevalent in Black and South Asian women, who also appear to have an increased risk for severe COVID-19 vs. their White counterparts.

However, women and younger people in general have a lower overall risk for severe COVID-19 and mortality compared with older people and men.

Women with PCOS may therefore “represent a distinct subgroup of women at higher than average [on the basis of their sex and age] risk of adverse COVID-19–related outcomes,” the researchers note.

To investigate further, they collated data from The Health Improvement Network primary care database, which includes information from 365 active general practices in the U.K. for the period Jan. 31, 2020, to July 22, 2020.

They identified women with PCOS or a coded diagnosis of polycystic ovaries (PCO), and then for each woman randomly selected four unaffected controls matched for age and general practice location.

They included 21,292 women with PCOS/PCO and 78,310 controls, who had a mean age at study entry of 39.3 years and 39.5 years, respectively. The mean age at diagnosis of PCOS was 27 years, and the mean duration of the condition was 12.4 years.

The crude incidence of COVID-19 was 18.1 per 1000 person-years among women with PCOS vs. 11.9 per 1000 person-years in those without.

Cox regression analysis adjusted for age indicated that women with PCOS faced a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 than those without, at a hazard ratio of 1.51 (P < .001).

Further adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and age reduced the hazard ratio to 1.36 (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, which also took into account impaired glucose regulation, androgen excess, anovulation, hypertension, and other PCOS-related factors, the hazard ratio remained significant, at 1.28 (P = .015).
 

For shielding, balance benefits with impact on mental health

Joint senior author Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, MD, PhD, also of the University of Birmingham, commented that, despite the increased risks, shielding strategies for COVID-19 need to take into account the impact of PCOS on women’s mental health.

“The risk of mental health problems, including low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression, is significantly higher in women with PCOS,” he said, “and advice on strict adherence to social distancing needs to be tempered by the associated risk of exacerbating these underlying problems.”

Arlt also pointed out that the study only looked at the incidence of COVID-19 infection, rather than outcomes.

“Our study does not provide information on the risk of a severe course of the COVID-19 infection or on the risk of COVID-19–related long-term complications [in women with PCOS], and further research is required,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Health Data Research UK and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the Health Research Board, and the National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre based at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) face an almost 30% increased risk for COVID-19 compared with unaffected women, even after adjusting for cardiometabolic and other related factors, suggests an analysis of United Kingdom primary care data.

“Our research has highlighted that women with PCOS are an often overlooked and potentially high-risk population for contracting COVID-19,” said joint senior author Wiebke Arlt, MD, PhD, director of the Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research at the University of Birmingham (England), in a press release.

“Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, women with PCOS consistently report fragmented care, delayed diagnosis and a perception of poor clinician understanding of their condition,” added co-author Michael W. O’Reilly, MD, PhD, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin.

“Women suffering from this condition may fear, with some degree of justification, that an enhanced risk of COVID-19 infection will further compromise timely access to health care and serve to increase the sense of disenfranchisement currently experienced by many patients,” he added.

Consequently, “these findings need to be considered when designing public health policy and advice as our understanding of COVID-19 evolves,” noted first author Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD Student, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham.

The research was published by the European Journal of Endocrinology on March 9.
 

Women with PCOS: A distinct subgroup?

PCOS, which is thought to affect up to 16% of women, is associated with a significantly increased risk for type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease, all which have been linked to more severe COVID-19.

The condition is more prevalent in Black and South Asian women, who also appear to have an increased risk for severe COVID-19 vs. their White counterparts.

However, women and younger people in general have a lower overall risk for severe COVID-19 and mortality compared with older people and men.

Women with PCOS may therefore “represent a distinct subgroup of women at higher than average [on the basis of their sex and age] risk of adverse COVID-19–related outcomes,” the researchers note.

To investigate further, they collated data from The Health Improvement Network primary care database, which includes information from 365 active general practices in the U.K. for the period Jan. 31, 2020, to July 22, 2020.

They identified women with PCOS or a coded diagnosis of polycystic ovaries (PCO), and then for each woman randomly selected four unaffected controls matched for age and general practice location.

They included 21,292 women with PCOS/PCO and 78,310 controls, who had a mean age at study entry of 39.3 years and 39.5 years, respectively. The mean age at diagnosis of PCOS was 27 years, and the mean duration of the condition was 12.4 years.

The crude incidence of COVID-19 was 18.1 per 1000 person-years among women with PCOS vs. 11.9 per 1000 person-years in those without.

Cox regression analysis adjusted for age indicated that women with PCOS faced a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 than those without, at a hazard ratio of 1.51 (P < .001).

Further adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and age reduced the hazard ratio to 1.36 (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, which also took into account impaired glucose regulation, androgen excess, anovulation, hypertension, and other PCOS-related factors, the hazard ratio remained significant, at 1.28 (P = .015).
 

For shielding, balance benefits with impact on mental health

Joint senior author Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, MD, PhD, also of the University of Birmingham, commented that, despite the increased risks, shielding strategies for COVID-19 need to take into account the impact of PCOS on women’s mental health.

“The risk of mental health problems, including low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression, is significantly higher in women with PCOS,” he said, “and advice on strict adherence to social distancing needs to be tempered by the associated risk of exacerbating these underlying problems.”

Arlt also pointed out that the study only looked at the incidence of COVID-19 infection, rather than outcomes.

“Our study does not provide information on the risk of a severe course of the COVID-19 infection or on the risk of COVID-19–related long-term complications [in women with PCOS], and further research is required,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Health Data Research UK and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the Health Research Board, and the National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre based at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) face an almost 30% increased risk for COVID-19 compared with unaffected women, even after adjusting for cardiometabolic and other related factors, suggests an analysis of United Kingdom primary care data.

“Our research has highlighted that women with PCOS are an often overlooked and potentially high-risk population for contracting COVID-19,” said joint senior author Wiebke Arlt, MD, PhD, director of the Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research at the University of Birmingham (England), in a press release.

“Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, women with PCOS consistently report fragmented care, delayed diagnosis and a perception of poor clinician understanding of their condition,” added co-author Michael W. O’Reilly, MD, PhD, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin.

“Women suffering from this condition may fear, with some degree of justification, that an enhanced risk of COVID-19 infection will further compromise timely access to health care and serve to increase the sense of disenfranchisement currently experienced by many patients,” he added.

Consequently, “these findings need to be considered when designing public health policy and advice as our understanding of COVID-19 evolves,” noted first author Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD Student, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham.

The research was published by the European Journal of Endocrinology on March 9.
 

Women with PCOS: A distinct subgroup?

PCOS, which is thought to affect up to 16% of women, is associated with a significantly increased risk for type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease, all which have been linked to more severe COVID-19.

The condition is more prevalent in Black and South Asian women, who also appear to have an increased risk for severe COVID-19 vs. their White counterparts.

However, women and younger people in general have a lower overall risk for severe COVID-19 and mortality compared with older people and men.

Women with PCOS may therefore “represent a distinct subgroup of women at higher than average [on the basis of their sex and age] risk of adverse COVID-19–related outcomes,” the researchers note.

To investigate further, they collated data from The Health Improvement Network primary care database, which includes information from 365 active general practices in the U.K. for the period Jan. 31, 2020, to July 22, 2020.

They identified women with PCOS or a coded diagnosis of polycystic ovaries (PCO), and then for each woman randomly selected four unaffected controls matched for age and general practice location.

They included 21,292 women with PCOS/PCO and 78,310 controls, who had a mean age at study entry of 39.3 years and 39.5 years, respectively. The mean age at diagnosis of PCOS was 27 years, and the mean duration of the condition was 12.4 years.

The crude incidence of COVID-19 was 18.1 per 1000 person-years among women with PCOS vs. 11.9 per 1000 person-years in those without.

Cox regression analysis adjusted for age indicated that women with PCOS faced a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 than those without, at a hazard ratio of 1.51 (P < .001).

Further adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and age reduced the hazard ratio to 1.36 (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, which also took into account impaired glucose regulation, androgen excess, anovulation, hypertension, and other PCOS-related factors, the hazard ratio remained significant, at 1.28 (P = .015).
 

For shielding, balance benefits with impact on mental health

Joint senior author Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, MD, PhD, also of the University of Birmingham, commented that, despite the increased risks, shielding strategies for COVID-19 need to take into account the impact of PCOS on women’s mental health.

“The risk of mental health problems, including low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression, is significantly higher in women with PCOS,” he said, “and advice on strict adherence to social distancing needs to be tempered by the associated risk of exacerbating these underlying problems.”

Arlt also pointed out that the study only looked at the incidence of COVID-19 infection, rather than outcomes.

“Our study does not provide information on the risk of a severe course of the COVID-19 infection or on the risk of COVID-19–related long-term complications [in women with PCOS], and further research is required,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Health Data Research UK and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the Health Research Board, and the National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre based at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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