COVID-19 Updates

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases in the United States totaled 64,264 for the week of Feb. 19-25, down from 70,640 the week before. That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.

Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases in the United States totaled 64,264 for the week of Feb. 19-25, down from 70,640 the week before. That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.

Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases in the United States totaled 64,264 for the week of Feb. 19-25, down from 70,640 the week before. That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.

Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Axillary adenopathy, or swelling under the armpit, has been reported by women after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, but it is also a common symptom of breast cancer.

Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.

“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.

In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”

They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.

Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.

“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”

Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.

“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
 

New recommendations from SBI

The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.

“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.

“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.

In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.

“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”

If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
 

Differences between the vaccines?

The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.

For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.

The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.

Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.

However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.

In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.

In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Axillary adenopathy, or swelling under the armpit, has been reported by women after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, but it is also a common symptom of breast cancer.

Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.

“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.

In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”

They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.

Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.

“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”

Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.

“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
 

New recommendations from SBI

The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.

“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.

“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.

In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.

“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”

If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
 

Differences between the vaccines?

The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.

For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.

The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.

Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.

However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.

In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.

In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Axillary adenopathy, or swelling under the armpit, has been reported by women after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, but it is also a common symptom of breast cancer.

Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.

“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.

In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”

They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.

Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.

“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”

Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.

“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
 

New recommendations from SBI

The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.

“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.

“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.

In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.

“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”

If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
 

Differences between the vaccines?

The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.

For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.

The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.

Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.

However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.

In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.

In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

What happened to Hasan Gokal, MD, should stick painfully in the craws of all physicians. It should serve as a call to action, because Dr. Gokal is sitting at home today without a job and under threat of further legal action while we continue about our day.

Dr. Gokal’s “crime” is that he vaccinated 10 strangers and acquaintances with soon-to-expire doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. He drove to the homes of some in the dark of night and injected others on his Sugar Land, Texas, lawn. He spent hours in a frantic search for willing recipients to beat the expiration clock. With minutes to spare, he gave the last dose to his at-risk wife, who has symptomatic pulmonary sarcoidosis, but whose age meant she did not fall into a vaccine priority tier.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Gokal’s wife was hesitant, afraid he might get into trouble. But why would she be hesitant? He wasn’t doing anything immoral. Perhaps she knew how far physicians have fallen and how bitterly they both could suffer.

In Barren County, Ky., where I live, a state of emergency was declared by our judge executive because of inclement weather. This directive allows our emergency management to “waive procedures and formalities otherwise required by the law.” It’s too bad that the same courtesy was not afforded to Dr. Gokal in Texas. It’s a shame that ice and snow didn’t drive his actions. Perhaps that would have protected him against the harsh criticism. Rather, it was his oath to patients and dedication to his fellow humans that motivated him, and for that, he was made to suffer.

Dr. Gokal was right to think that pouring the last 10 vaccine doses down the toilet would be an egregious act. But he was wrong in thinking his decision to find takers for the vaccine would be viewed as expedient. Instead, he was accused of graft and even nepotism. And there is the rub. That he was fired and charged with the theft of $137 worth of vaccines says everything about how physicians are treated in the year 2021. Dr. Gokal’s lawyer says the charge carried a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison and a fine of nearly $4,000.

Thank God a sage judge threw out the case and “rebuked” the office of District Attorney Kim Ogg. That hasn’t stopped her from threatening to bring the case to a grand jury. That threat invites anyone faced with the same scenario to flush the extra vaccine doses into the septic system. It encourages us to choose the toilet handle to avoid a mug shot.

And we can’t ignore the racial slant to this story. The Times reported that Dr. Gokal asked the officials, “Are you suggesting that there were too many Indian names in this group?”

“Exactly” was the answer. Let that sink in.

None of this would have happened 20 years ago. Back then, no one would have questioned the wisdom a physician gains from all our years of training and residency. In an age when anyone who conducts an office visit is now called “doctor,” respect for the letters “MD” has been leveled. We physicians have lost our autonomy and been cowed into submission.

But whatever his profession, Hasan Gokal was fired for being a good human. Today, the sun rose on 10 individuals who now enjoy better protection against a deadly pandemic. They include a bed-bound nonagenarian. A woman in her 80s with dementia. A mother with a child who uses a ventilator. All now have antibodies against SARS-CoV2 because of the tireless actions of Dr. Gokal.

Yet Dr. Gokal’s future is uncertain. Will we help him, or will we leave him to the wolves? In an email exchange with his lawyer’s office, I learned that Dr. Gokal has received offers of employment but is unable to entertain them because the actions by the Harris County District Attorney triggered an automatic review by the Texas Medical Board. A GoFundMe page was launched, but an appreciative Dr. Gokal stated publicly that he’d rather the money go to a needy charity.

 In the last paragraph of the Times article, Dr. Gokal asks, “How can I take it back?” referencing stories about “the Pakistani doctor in Houston who stole all those vaccines.”

Let’s help him take back his story. In helping him, perhaps we can take back a little control. We could start with letters of support that could be mailed to his lawyer, Paul Doyle, Esq., of Houston, or tweet, respectfully of course, to the district attorney @Kimoggforda.

We can also let the Harris County Public Health Department in Houston know what we think of their actions.

On Martin Luther King Day, Kim Ogg, the district attorney who charged Dr. Gokal, tweeted MLK’s famous quote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Let that motivate us to action.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. In addition to opinion writing, she enjoys spending time with her husband, daughters and parents, and sidelines as a backing vocalist for local rock bands. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

What happened to Hasan Gokal, MD, should stick painfully in the craws of all physicians. It should serve as a call to action, because Dr. Gokal is sitting at home today without a job and under threat of further legal action while we continue about our day.

Dr. Gokal’s “crime” is that he vaccinated 10 strangers and acquaintances with soon-to-expire doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. He drove to the homes of some in the dark of night and injected others on his Sugar Land, Texas, lawn. He spent hours in a frantic search for willing recipients to beat the expiration clock. With minutes to spare, he gave the last dose to his at-risk wife, who has symptomatic pulmonary sarcoidosis, but whose age meant she did not fall into a vaccine priority tier.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Gokal’s wife was hesitant, afraid he might get into trouble. But why would she be hesitant? He wasn’t doing anything immoral. Perhaps she knew how far physicians have fallen and how bitterly they both could suffer.

In Barren County, Ky., where I live, a state of emergency was declared by our judge executive because of inclement weather. This directive allows our emergency management to “waive procedures and formalities otherwise required by the law.” It’s too bad that the same courtesy was not afforded to Dr. Gokal in Texas. It’s a shame that ice and snow didn’t drive his actions. Perhaps that would have protected him against the harsh criticism. Rather, it was his oath to patients and dedication to his fellow humans that motivated him, and for that, he was made to suffer.

Dr. Gokal was right to think that pouring the last 10 vaccine doses down the toilet would be an egregious act. But he was wrong in thinking his decision to find takers for the vaccine would be viewed as expedient. Instead, he was accused of graft and even nepotism. And there is the rub. That he was fired and charged with the theft of $137 worth of vaccines says everything about how physicians are treated in the year 2021. Dr. Gokal’s lawyer says the charge carried a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison and a fine of nearly $4,000.

Thank God a sage judge threw out the case and “rebuked” the office of District Attorney Kim Ogg. That hasn’t stopped her from threatening to bring the case to a grand jury. That threat invites anyone faced with the same scenario to flush the extra vaccine doses into the septic system. It encourages us to choose the toilet handle to avoid a mug shot.

And we can’t ignore the racial slant to this story. The Times reported that Dr. Gokal asked the officials, “Are you suggesting that there were too many Indian names in this group?”

“Exactly” was the answer. Let that sink in.

None of this would have happened 20 years ago. Back then, no one would have questioned the wisdom a physician gains from all our years of training and residency. In an age when anyone who conducts an office visit is now called “doctor,” respect for the letters “MD” has been leveled. We physicians have lost our autonomy and been cowed into submission.

But whatever his profession, Hasan Gokal was fired for being a good human. Today, the sun rose on 10 individuals who now enjoy better protection against a deadly pandemic. They include a bed-bound nonagenarian. A woman in her 80s with dementia. A mother with a child who uses a ventilator. All now have antibodies against SARS-CoV2 because of the tireless actions of Dr. Gokal.

Yet Dr. Gokal’s future is uncertain. Will we help him, or will we leave him to the wolves? In an email exchange with his lawyer’s office, I learned that Dr. Gokal has received offers of employment but is unable to entertain them because the actions by the Harris County District Attorney triggered an automatic review by the Texas Medical Board. A GoFundMe page was launched, but an appreciative Dr. Gokal stated publicly that he’d rather the money go to a needy charity.

 In the last paragraph of the Times article, Dr. Gokal asks, “How can I take it back?” referencing stories about “the Pakistani doctor in Houston who stole all those vaccines.”

Let’s help him take back his story. In helping him, perhaps we can take back a little control. We could start with letters of support that could be mailed to his lawyer, Paul Doyle, Esq., of Houston, or tweet, respectfully of course, to the district attorney @Kimoggforda.

We can also let the Harris County Public Health Department in Houston know what we think of their actions.

On Martin Luther King Day, Kim Ogg, the district attorney who charged Dr. Gokal, tweeted MLK’s famous quote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Let that motivate us to action.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. In addition to opinion writing, she enjoys spending time with her husband, daughters and parents, and sidelines as a backing vocalist for local rock bands. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

What happened to Hasan Gokal, MD, should stick painfully in the craws of all physicians. It should serve as a call to action, because Dr. Gokal is sitting at home today without a job and under threat of further legal action while we continue about our day.

Dr. Gokal’s “crime” is that he vaccinated 10 strangers and acquaintances with soon-to-expire doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. He drove to the homes of some in the dark of night and injected others on his Sugar Land, Texas, lawn. He spent hours in a frantic search for willing recipients to beat the expiration clock. With minutes to spare, he gave the last dose to his at-risk wife, who has symptomatic pulmonary sarcoidosis, but whose age meant she did not fall into a vaccine priority tier.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Gokal’s wife was hesitant, afraid he might get into trouble. But why would she be hesitant? He wasn’t doing anything immoral. Perhaps she knew how far physicians have fallen and how bitterly they both could suffer.

In Barren County, Ky., where I live, a state of emergency was declared by our judge executive because of inclement weather. This directive allows our emergency management to “waive procedures and formalities otherwise required by the law.” It’s too bad that the same courtesy was not afforded to Dr. Gokal in Texas. It’s a shame that ice and snow didn’t drive his actions. Perhaps that would have protected him against the harsh criticism. Rather, it was his oath to patients and dedication to his fellow humans that motivated him, and for that, he was made to suffer.

Dr. Gokal was right to think that pouring the last 10 vaccine doses down the toilet would be an egregious act. But he was wrong in thinking his decision to find takers for the vaccine would be viewed as expedient. Instead, he was accused of graft and even nepotism. And there is the rub. That he was fired and charged with the theft of $137 worth of vaccines says everything about how physicians are treated in the year 2021. Dr. Gokal’s lawyer says the charge carried a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison and a fine of nearly $4,000.

Thank God a sage judge threw out the case and “rebuked” the office of District Attorney Kim Ogg. That hasn’t stopped her from threatening to bring the case to a grand jury. That threat invites anyone faced with the same scenario to flush the extra vaccine doses into the septic system. It encourages us to choose the toilet handle to avoid a mug shot.

And we can’t ignore the racial slant to this story. The Times reported that Dr. Gokal asked the officials, “Are you suggesting that there were too many Indian names in this group?”

“Exactly” was the answer. Let that sink in.

None of this would have happened 20 years ago. Back then, no one would have questioned the wisdom a physician gains from all our years of training and residency. In an age when anyone who conducts an office visit is now called “doctor,” respect for the letters “MD” has been leveled. We physicians have lost our autonomy and been cowed into submission.

But whatever his profession, Hasan Gokal was fired for being a good human. Today, the sun rose on 10 individuals who now enjoy better protection against a deadly pandemic. They include a bed-bound nonagenarian. A woman in her 80s with dementia. A mother with a child who uses a ventilator. All now have antibodies against SARS-CoV2 because of the tireless actions of Dr. Gokal.

Yet Dr. Gokal’s future is uncertain. Will we help him, or will we leave him to the wolves? In an email exchange with his lawyer’s office, I learned that Dr. Gokal has received offers of employment but is unable to entertain them because the actions by the Harris County District Attorney triggered an automatic review by the Texas Medical Board. A GoFundMe page was launched, but an appreciative Dr. Gokal stated publicly that he’d rather the money go to a needy charity.

 In the last paragraph of the Times article, Dr. Gokal asks, “How can I take it back?” referencing stories about “the Pakistani doctor in Houston who stole all those vaccines.”

Let’s help him take back his story. In helping him, perhaps we can take back a little control. We could start with letters of support that could be mailed to his lawyer, Paul Doyle, Esq., of Houston, or tweet, respectfully of course, to the district attorney @Kimoggforda.

We can also let the Harris County Public Health Department in Houston know what we think of their actions.

On Martin Luther King Day, Kim Ogg, the district attorney who charged Dr. Gokal, tweeted MLK’s famous quote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Let that motivate us to action.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. In addition to opinion writing, she enjoys spending time with her husband, daughters and parents, and sidelines as a backing vocalist for local rock bands. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two themes have emerged recently in my psychotherapy practice, and in the mirror: relief and exhaustion. Some peace in the public discourse, or at least a pause in the ominous discord, has had the effect of a lightening, an unburdening. Some release from a contracted sense of tension around the specifics of violence and a broader sense of civil fracture has been palpable like a big, deep breath, exhaled. No sensible person would mistake this for being out of the metaphoric woods. A virus menaces and mutates, economic woes follow, and lots of us don’t get along. But, yes, there is some relief, some good change.

But even good change, even a downshift into relief, can pose some challenges to look for and overcome.

Consider for a moment the notion that every change represents a loss, a metaphoric “death” of the prior state of things. This is true of big, painful losses, like the death of a loved one, and small ones, like finding an empty cookie jar. It’s also true in changes we associate with benefit or relief: a refund check, a job promotion, a resolving migraine, or the breaking out of some civility.

In changes of all sorts, the world outside of one’s mind has shifted – at odds, momentarily, with our inner, now obsolete understanding of that changed world. The inside of the head does not match the outside. How we make that adjustment, so “inside = outside,” is a clinically familiar process: it’s grieving, with a sequence famously elaborated upon by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, MD,¹ and others.

We all likely know the steps: shock/denial, anger, “bargaining,” depression, and acceptance. A quick review: Our initial anxious/threat reaction leads to grievous judgment, to rationalizing “woulda/coulda/shoulda’s,” then to truly landing in the disappointment of a loss or change, and the accepting of a new steady state. Inside proceeds to match outside.

So, what then of relief? How do we process “good” change? I think we still must move from “in ≠ out” to “in = out,” navigating some pitfalls along the way.

Initial threat often remains; apprehension of the “new” still can generate energy, and even a sense of threat, regardless of a kiss or a shove. Our brainstems run roughshod over this first phase.

Step two is about judgment. We can move past the threat to, “How do I feel about it?” Here’s where grievous feeling gets swapped out for something more peak-positive – joy, or relief if the change represents an ending of a state of suffering, tension, or uncertainty.

The “bargaining” step still happens, but often around a kind of testing regimen: Is this too good to be true? Is it really different? We run scenarios.

The thud of disappointment also gets a makeover. It’s a settling into the beneficial change and its associations: gratitude, a sense of energy shifting.

The bookend “OK” seems anodyne here – why would anyone not accept relief, some good change?² But it can nevertheless represent a challenge for many. The receding tension of the last year could open into a burst of energy, but I’m finding that exhaustion is just as or more common. That’s not illness, but a weary exhaling from the longest of held breaths.

One other twist: What happens when one of those steps is an individual obstacle, trigger, or hard-to-hold state? Especially for those with deep experience in disappointment or even trauma, buying into acceptance of a new normal can feel like a fool’s game. This is an especially complex spot for individuals who won’t quite allow for joyful acceptance to break out, lest it reveals itself as a humiliating trick or a too-brief respite from the “usual.”

Mindfulness practices, such as meditation, are helpful in managing this process. Committed time and optimal conditions to witness and adapt to the various inner states that ebb and flow generate a clear therapeutic benefit. Incorporating meditation training into my work with psychotherapy patients also becomes a kind of diagnostic force multiplier. Patients improve their identification of somatic manifestations, emotional reactions, and cycling ruminations of thought. What generates distraction and loss of mindful attention becomes better recognized. Contemplative work in between sessions becomes more productive.

What else do I advise?³ Patience, and some compassion for ourselves in this unusual time. Grief, and relief, are complex but truly human processes that generate not just one state of experience, but a cascade of them. While that cascade can hurt, it’s actually normal, not illness. But it can be exhausting.
 

Dr. Sazima is a Northern California psychiatrist, educator, and author. He is senior behavioral faculty at the Stanford-O’Connor Family Medicine Residency Program in San José, Calif. His latest book is “Practical Mindfulness: A Physician’s No-Nonsense Guide to Meditation for Beginners,” Miami: Mango Publishing, 2021. Dr. Sazima disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Kübler-Ross E. “On Death And Dying,” New York: Simon & Schuster, 1969.

2. Selye H. “Stress Without Distress,” New York: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1974.

3. Sazima G. “Practical Mindfulness: A Physician’s No-Nonsense Guide to Meditation for Beginners,” Miami: Mango Publishing, 2021.

Two themes have emerged recently in my psychotherapy practice, and in the mirror: relief and exhaustion. Some peace in the public discourse, or at least a pause in the ominous discord, has had the effect of a lightening, an unburdening. Some release from a contracted sense of tension around the specifics of violence and a broader sense of civil fracture has been palpable like a big, deep breath, exhaled. No sensible person would mistake this for being out of the metaphoric woods. A virus menaces and mutates, economic woes follow, and lots of us don’t get along. But, yes, there is some relief, some good change.

But even good change, even a downshift into relief, can pose some challenges to look for and overcome.

Consider for a moment the notion that every change represents a loss, a metaphoric “death” of the prior state of things. This is true of big, painful losses, like the death of a loved one, and small ones, like finding an empty cookie jar. It’s also true in changes we associate with benefit or relief: a refund check, a job promotion, a resolving migraine, or the breaking out of some civility.

In changes of all sorts, the world outside of one’s mind has shifted – at odds, momentarily, with our inner, now obsolete understanding of that changed world. The inside of the head does not match the outside. How we make that adjustment, so “inside = outside,” is a clinically familiar process: it’s grieving, with a sequence famously elaborated upon by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, MD,¹ and others.

We all likely know the steps: shock/denial, anger, “bargaining,” depression, and acceptance. A quick review: Our initial anxious/threat reaction leads to grievous judgment, to rationalizing “woulda/coulda/shoulda’s,” then to truly landing in the disappointment of a loss or change, and the accepting of a new steady state. Inside proceeds to match outside.

So, what then of relief? How do we process “good” change? I think we still must move from “in ≠ out” to “in = out,” navigating some pitfalls along the way.

Initial threat often remains; apprehension of the “new” still can generate energy, and even a sense of threat, regardless of a kiss or a shove. Our brainstems run roughshod over this first phase.

Step two is about judgment. We can move past the threat to, “How do I feel about it?” Here’s where grievous feeling gets swapped out for something more peak-positive – joy, or relief if the change represents an ending of a state of suffering, tension, or uncertainty.

The “bargaining” step still happens, but often around a kind of testing regimen: Is this too good to be true? Is it really different? We run scenarios.

The thud of disappointment also gets a makeover. It’s a settling into the beneficial change and its associations: gratitude, a sense of energy shifting.

The bookend “OK” seems anodyne here – why would anyone not accept relief, some good change?² But it can nevertheless represent a challenge for many. The receding tension of the last year could open into a burst of energy, but I’m finding that exhaustion is just as or more common. That’s not illness, but a weary exhaling from the longest of held breaths.

One other twist: What happens when one of those steps is an individual obstacle, trigger, or hard-to-hold state? Especially for those with deep experience in disappointment or even trauma, buying into acceptance of a new normal can feel like a fool’s game. This is an especially complex spot for individuals who won’t quite allow for joyful acceptance to break out, lest it reveals itself as a humiliating trick or a too-brief respite from the “usual.”

Mindfulness practices, such as meditation, are helpful in managing this process. Committed time and optimal conditions to witness and adapt to the various inner states that ebb and flow generate a clear therapeutic benefit. Incorporating meditation training into my work with psychotherapy patients also becomes a kind of diagnostic force multiplier. Patients improve their identification of somatic manifestations, emotional reactions, and cycling ruminations of thought. What generates distraction and loss of mindful attention becomes better recognized. Contemplative work in between sessions becomes more productive.

What else do I advise?³ Patience, and some compassion for ourselves in this unusual time. Grief, and relief, are complex but truly human processes that generate not just one state of experience, but a cascade of them. While that cascade can hurt, it’s actually normal, not illness. But it can be exhausting.
 

Dr. Sazima is a Northern California psychiatrist, educator, and author. He is senior behavioral faculty at the Stanford-O’Connor Family Medicine Residency Program in San José, Calif. His latest book is “Practical Mindfulness: A Physician’s No-Nonsense Guide to Meditation for Beginners,” Miami: Mango Publishing, 2021. Dr. Sazima disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Kübler-Ross E. “On Death And Dying,” New York: Simon & Schuster, 1969.

2. Selye H. “Stress Without Distress,” New York: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1974.

3. Sazima G. “Practical Mindfulness: A Physician’s No-Nonsense Guide to Meditation for Beginners,” Miami: Mango Publishing, 2021.

Two themes have emerged recently in my psychotherapy practice, and in the mirror: relief and exhaustion. Some peace in the public discourse, or at least a pause in the ominous discord, has had the effect of a lightening, an unburdening. Some release from a contracted sense of tension around the specifics of violence and a broader sense of civil fracture has been palpable like a big, deep breath, exhaled. No sensible person would mistake this for being out of the metaphoric woods. A virus menaces and mutates, economic woes follow, and lots of us don’t get along. But, yes, there is some relief, some good change.

But even good change, even a downshift into relief, can pose some challenges to look for and overcome.

Consider for a moment the notion that every change represents a loss, a metaphoric “death” of the prior state of things. This is true of big, painful losses, like the death of a loved one, and small ones, like finding an empty cookie jar. It’s also true in changes we associate with benefit or relief: a refund check, a job promotion, a resolving migraine, or the breaking out of some civility.

In changes of all sorts, the world outside of one’s mind has shifted – at odds, momentarily, with our inner, now obsolete understanding of that changed world. The inside of the head does not match the outside. How we make that adjustment, so “inside = outside,” is a clinically familiar process: it’s grieving, with a sequence famously elaborated upon by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, MD,¹ and others.

We all likely know the steps: shock/denial, anger, “bargaining,” depression, and acceptance. A quick review: Our initial anxious/threat reaction leads to grievous judgment, to rationalizing “woulda/coulda/shoulda’s,” then to truly landing in the disappointment of a loss or change, and the accepting of a new steady state. Inside proceeds to match outside.

So, what then of relief? How do we process “good” change? I think we still must move from “in ≠ out” to “in = out,” navigating some pitfalls along the way.

Initial threat often remains; apprehension of the “new” still can generate energy, and even a sense of threat, regardless of a kiss or a shove. Our brainstems run roughshod over this first phase.

Step two is about judgment. We can move past the threat to, “How do I feel about it?” Here’s where grievous feeling gets swapped out for something more peak-positive – joy, or relief if the change represents an ending of a state of suffering, tension, or uncertainty.

The “bargaining” step still happens, but often around a kind of testing regimen: Is this too good to be true? Is it really different? We run scenarios.

The thud of disappointment also gets a makeover. It’s a settling into the beneficial change and its associations: gratitude, a sense of energy shifting.

The bookend “OK” seems anodyne here – why would anyone not accept relief, some good change?² But it can nevertheless represent a challenge for many. The receding tension of the last year could open into a burst of energy, but I’m finding that exhaustion is just as or more common. That’s not illness, but a weary exhaling from the longest of held breaths.

One other twist: What happens when one of those steps is an individual obstacle, trigger, or hard-to-hold state? Especially for those with deep experience in disappointment or even trauma, buying into acceptance of a new normal can feel like a fool’s game. This is an especially complex spot for individuals who won’t quite allow for joyful acceptance to break out, lest it reveals itself as a humiliating trick or a too-brief respite from the “usual.”

Mindfulness practices, such as meditation, are helpful in managing this process. Committed time and optimal conditions to witness and adapt to the various inner states that ebb and flow generate a clear therapeutic benefit. Incorporating meditation training into my work with psychotherapy patients also becomes a kind of diagnostic force multiplier. Patients improve their identification of somatic manifestations, emotional reactions, and cycling ruminations of thought. What generates distraction and loss of mindful attention becomes better recognized. Contemplative work in between sessions becomes more productive.

What else do I advise?³ Patience, and some compassion for ourselves in this unusual time. Grief, and relief, are complex but truly human processes that generate not just one state of experience, but a cascade of them. While that cascade can hurt, it’s actually normal, not illness. But it can be exhausting.
 

Dr. Sazima is a Northern California psychiatrist, educator, and author. He is senior behavioral faculty at the Stanford-O’Connor Family Medicine Residency Program in San José, Calif. His latest book is “Practical Mindfulness: A Physician’s No-Nonsense Guide to Meditation for Beginners,” Miami: Mango Publishing, 2021. Dr. Sazima disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Kübler-Ross E. “On Death And Dying,” New York: Simon & Schuster, 1969.

2. Selye H. “Stress Without Distress,” New York: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1974.

3. Sazima G. “Practical Mindfulness: A Physician’s No-Nonsense Guide to Meditation for Beginners,” Miami: Mango Publishing, 2021.

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

An overview of five important advances in pulmonary and critical care medicine are on the agenda for the “Update in Pulmonary and Critical Care” session on Tuesday, May 4, at the virtual 2021 SHM Converge conference.

“I hope this session gives attendees a nice, broad look at advances both in the intensive care unit and in general pulmonary medicine,” said James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, who serves as director of the session.

On the critical care medicine side, Dr. Walter will review the latest research on the efficacy of ascorbic acid in treating patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. “There was a lot of excitement and some skepticism about early results promising a really large treatment effect in giving critically ill patients with sepsis large doses of vitamin C,” Dr. Walter said. The last year has produced some high-quality randomized trials that have contributed to a better understanding of the potential effects ascorbic acid in sepsis can have, he noted.

Dr. Walter, who is also medical director of the Northwestern Lung Rescue Program, intends to discuss what he believes is a definitive trial regarding the benefit of preemptively starting critically ill patients with acute kidney injury on renal replacement therapy instead of waiting until there are specific clinical signs. “This has been another area of uncertainty in critical care and I think we finally have a very definitive answer with this high quality, randomized, controlled trial that I plan to review,” he said.

Though he said there have been a number of important advances in pulmonary medicine over the past year, Dr. Walter will highlight just two.

Up until recently, the antifibrotics nintedanib and pirfenidone have mostly been used in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. However, recent research suggests there may be a potential benefit to using these drugs in patients with fibrotic lung disease outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. “I think this is an important advance for hospital medicine providers to be aware of,” said Dr. Walter.

He will also go over some large randomized controlled trials of the use of triple therapy – a combination of a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid in one inhaler – in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The trials looked at whether triple inhaler therapy was beneficial compared to the typical therapies used for COPD.

The session wouldn’t be complete without a nod to COVID-19, which Dr. Walter said has significantly changed the landscape for hospital medicine providers. He plans to discuss what he considers the most impactful study – the RECOVERY trial. This study looked at the role of dexamethasone in patients with more severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2.

“From the incredible amount of data that’s come out in the last year about COVID, I think this is probably the trial that’s changed practice the most and shown the largest therapeutic benefit of all the pharmacotherapies,” Dr. Walter said. “It’s an important one for providers to be aware of in terms of what the trial shows and how it informs which patients are most likely to benefit from dexamethasone therapy.”

Dr. Walter hopes clinicians who participate in the session will leave with these takeaways:

• Be able to summarize recent trials of ascorbic acid in sepsis and think about how to incorporate – or not – the use of vitamin C in critically ill sepsis patients.
• A thorough understanding of when renal replacement therapy should be offered to critically ill patients with acute kidney dysfunction.
• Be able to discuss the impact of antifibrotic therapy in interstitial lung diseases outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
• An understanding of the role of triple inhaler combinations in COPD.
• Be able to explain when dexamethasone is most likely to benefit hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.

An overview of five important advances in pulmonary and critical care medicine are on the agenda for the “Update in Pulmonary and Critical Care” session on Tuesday, May 4, at the virtual 2021 SHM Converge conference.

“I hope this session gives attendees a nice, broad look at advances both in the intensive care unit and in general pulmonary medicine,” said James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, who serves as director of the session.

On the critical care medicine side, Dr. Walter will review the latest research on the efficacy of ascorbic acid in treating patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. “There was a lot of excitement and some skepticism about early results promising a really large treatment effect in giving critically ill patients with sepsis large doses of vitamin C,” Dr. Walter said. The last year has produced some high-quality randomized trials that have contributed to a better understanding of the potential effects ascorbic acid in sepsis can have, he noted.

Dr. Walter, who is also medical director of the Northwestern Lung Rescue Program, intends to discuss what he believes is a definitive trial regarding the benefit of preemptively starting critically ill patients with acute kidney injury on renal replacement therapy instead of waiting until there are specific clinical signs. “This has been another area of uncertainty in critical care and I think we finally have a very definitive answer with this high quality, randomized, controlled trial that I plan to review,” he said.

Though he said there have been a number of important advances in pulmonary medicine over the past year, Dr. Walter will highlight just two.

Up until recently, the antifibrotics nintedanib and pirfenidone have mostly been used in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. However, recent research suggests there may be a potential benefit to using these drugs in patients with fibrotic lung disease outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. “I think this is an important advance for hospital medicine providers to be aware of,” said Dr. Walter.

He will also go over some large randomized controlled trials of the use of triple therapy – a combination of a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid in one inhaler – in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The trials looked at whether triple inhaler therapy was beneficial compared to the typical therapies used for COPD.

The session wouldn’t be complete without a nod to COVID-19, which Dr. Walter said has significantly changed the landscape for hospital medicine providers. He plans to discuss what he considers the most impactful study – the RECOVERY trial. This study looked at the role of dexamethasone in patients with more severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2.

“From the incredible amount of data that’s come out in the last year about COVID, I think this is probably the trial that’s changed practice the most and shown the largest therapeutic benefit of all the pharmacotherapies,” Dr. Walter said. “It’s an important one for providers to be aware of in terms of what the trial shows and how it informs which patients are most likely to benefit from dexamethasone therapy.”

Dr. Walter hopes clinicians who participate in the session will leave with these takeaways:

• Be able to summarize recent trials of ascorbic acid in sepsis and think about how to incorporate – or not – the use of vitamin C in critically ill sepsis patients.
• A thorough understanding of when renal replacement therapy should be offered to critically ill patients with acute kidney dysfunction.
• Be able to discuss the impact of antifibrotic therapy in interstitial lung diseases outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
• An understanding of the role of triple inhaler combinations in COPD.
• Be able to explain when dexamethasone is most likely to benefit hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.

An overview of five important advances in pulmonary and critical care medicine are on the agenda for the “Update in Pulmonary and Critical Care” session on Tuesday, May 4, at the virtual 2021 SHM Converge conference.

“I hope this session gives attendees a nice, broad look at advances both in the intensive care unit and in general pulmonary medicine,” said James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, who serves as director of the session.

On the critical care medicine side, Dr. Walter will review the latest research on the efficacy of ascorbic acid in treating patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. “There was a lot of excitement and some skepticism about early results promising a really large treatment effect in giving critically ill patients with sepsis large doses of vitamin C,” Dr. Walter said. The last year has produced some high-quality randomized trials that have contributed to a better understanding of the potential effects ascorbic acid in sepsis can have, he noted.

Dr. Walter, who is also medical director of the Northwestern Lung Rescue Program, intends to discuss what he believes is a definitive trial regarding the benefit of preemptively starting critically ill patients with acute kidney injury on renal replacement therapy instead of waiting until there are specific clinical signs. “This has been another area of uncertainty in critical care and I think we finally have a very definitive answer with this high quality, randomized, controlled trial that I plan to review,” he said.

Though he said there have been a number of important advances in pulmonary medicine over the past year, Dr. Walter will highlight just two.

Up until recently, the antifibrotics nintedanib and pirfenidone have mostly been used in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. However, recent research suggests there may be a potential benefit to using these drugs in patients with fibrotic lung disease outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. “I think this is an important advance for hospital medicine providers to be aware of,” said Dr. Walter.

He will also go over some large randomized controlled trials of the use of triple therapy – a combination of a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid in one inhaler – in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The trials looked at whether triple inhaler therapy was beneficial compared to the typical therapies used for COPD.

The session wouldn’t be complete without a nod to COVID-19, which Dr. Walter said has significantly changed the landscape for hospital medicine providers. He plans to discuss what he considers the most impactful study – the RECOVERY trial. This study looked at the role of dexamethasone in patients with more severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2.

“From the incredible amount of data that’s come out in the last year about COVID, I think this is probably the trial that’s changed practice the most and shown the largest therapeutic benefit of all the pharmacotherapies,” Dr. Walter said. “It’s an important one for providers to be aware of in terms of what the trial shows and how it informs which patients are most likely to benefit from dexamethasone therapy.”

Dr. Walter hopes clinicians who participate in the session will leave with these takeaways:

• Be able to summarize recent trials of ascorbic acid in sepsis and think about how to incorporate – or not – the use of vitamin C in critically ill sepsis patients.
• A thorough understanding of when renal replacement therapy should be offered to critically ill patients with acute kidney dysfunction.
• Be able to discuss the impact of antifibrotic therapy in interstitial lung diseases outside of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
• An understanding of the role of triple inhaler combinations in COPD.
• Be able to explain when dexamethasone is most likely to benefit hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.

While the implementation of mass vaccinations is a public health task, individual clinicians are critical for the success of any vaccination campaign. Psychiatrists may be well positioned to help increase vaccine uptake among psychiatric patients. They see their patients more frequently than primary care physicians do, which allows for patient engagement over time regarding vaccinations. Also, as physicians, psychiatrists are a trusted source of medical information, and they are well-versed in using the tools of nudging and motivational interviewing to manage ambivalence about receiving a vaccine (vaccine hesitancy).¹

The “ABCs of successful vaccinations” (Figure) provide a framework that psychiatrists can use when speaking with their patients about vaccinations. The ABCs assess psychological factors that hinder acceptance of vaccination (A = Attitudes toward vaccination), practical challenges in vaccine access for patients who are willing to get vaccinated (B = Barriers to vaccination), and the actual outcome of “shot in the arm” (C = Completed vaccination series). The Figure provides examples of each area of focus.

How to talk to patients about vaccines

“Attitudes toward vaccination” is an area in which psychiatrists can potentially move patients from hesitancy to vaccine confidence and acceptance. First, express confidence in the vaccine (ie, make a clear statement: “You are an excellent candidate for this vaccine.”). Then, begin a discussion using presumptive language: “You must be ready to receive the vaccine.” In individuals who hesitate, elicit their concern: “What would make vaccination more acceptable?” In those who agree in principle about the benefits of vaccinations, ask about any impediments: “What would get in the way of getting vaccinated?” While some patients may require more information about the vaccine, others may need more time or mostly concrete help, such as assistance with scheduling a vaccine appointment. Do not to forget to follow up to see if a planned and complete vaccination series has taken place. The CDC offers an excellent online toolkit to help clinicians discuss vaccinations with their patients.²

Psychiatric patients, particularly those from disadvantaged and marginalized populations, have much to gain if psychiatrists are involved in preventive health care, including the coronavirus vaccination drive or the annual flu vaccination campaign.

While the implementation of mass vaccinations is a public health task, individual clinicians are critical for the success of any vaccination campaign. Psychiatrists may be well positioned to help increase vaccine uptake among psychiatric patients. They see their patients more frequently than primary care physicians do, which allows for patient engagement over time regarding vaccinations. Also, as physicians, psychiatrists are a trusted source of medical information, and they are well-versed in using the tools of nudging and motivational interviewing to manage ambivalence about receiving a vaccine (vaccine hesitancy).¹

The “ABCs of successful vaccinations” (Figure) provide a framework that psychiatrists can use when speaking with their patients about vaccinations. The ABCs assess psychological factors that hinder acceptance of vaccination (A = Attitudes toward vaccination), practical challenges in vaccine access for patients who are willing to get vaccinated (B = Barriers to vaccination), and the actual outcome of “shot in the arm” (C = Completed vaccination series). The Figure provides examples of each area of focus.

How to talk to patients about vaccines

“Attitudes toward vaccination” is an area in which psychiatrists can potentially move patients from hesitancy to vaccine confidence and acceptance. First, express confidence in the vaccine (ie, make a clear statement: “You are an excellent candidate for this vaccine.”). Then, begin a discussion using presumptive language: “You must be ready to receive the vaccine.” In individuals who hesitate, elicit their concern: “What would make vaccination more acceptable?” In those who agree in principle about the benefits of vaccinations, ask about any impediments: “What would get in the way of getting vaccinated?” While some patients may require more information about the vaccine, others may need more time or mostly concrete help, such as assistance with scheduling a vaccine appointment. Do not to forget to follow up to see if a planned and complete vaccination series has taken place. The CDC offers an excellent online toolkit to help clinicians discuss vaccinations with their patients.²

Psychiatric patients, particularly those from disadvantaged and marginalized populations, have much to gain if psychiatrists are involved in preventive health care, including the coronavirus vaccination drive or the annual flu vaccination campaign.

While the implementation of mass vaccinations is a public health task, individual clinicians are critical for the success of any vaccination campaign. Psychiatrists may be well positioned to help increase vaccine uptake among psychiatric patients. They see their patients more frequently than primary care physicians do, which allows for patient engagement over time regarding vaccinations. Also, as physicians, psychiatrists are a trusted source of medical information, and they are well-versed in using the tools of nudging and motivational interviewing to manage ambivalence about receiving a vaccine (vaccine hesitancy).¹

The “ABCs of successful vaccinations” (Figure) provide a framework that psychiatrists can use when speaking with their patients about vaccinations. The ABCs assess psychological factors that hinder acceptance of vaccination (A = Attitudes toward vaccination), practical challenges in vaccine access for patients who are willing to get vaccinated (B = Barriers to vaccination), and the actual outcome of “shot in the arm” (C = Completed vaccination series). The Figure provides examples of each area of focus.

How to talk to patients about vaccines

“Attitudes toward vaccination” is an area in which psychiatrists can potentially move patients from hesitancy to vaccine confidence and acceptance. First, express confidence in the vaccine (ie, make a clear statement: “You are an excellent candidate for this vaccine.”). Then, begin a discussion using presumptive language: “You must be ready to receive the vaccine.” In individuals who hesitate, elicit their concern: “What would make vaccination more acceptable?” In those who agree in principle about the benefits of vaccinations, ask about any impediments: “What would get in the way of getting vaccinated?” While some patients may require more information about the vaccine, others may need more time or mostly concrete help, such as assistance with scheduling a vaccine appointment. Do not to forget to follow up to see if a planned and complete vaccination series has taken place. The CDC offers an excellent online toolkit to help clinicians discuss vaccinations with their patients.²

Psychiatric patients, particularly those from disadvantaged and marginalized populations, have much to gain if psychiatrists are involved in preventive health care, including the coronavirus vaccination drive or the annual flu vaccination campaign.

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

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

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

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

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

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