COVID-19 Updates

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most pressing public health challenges the United States has ever faced, and the resulting financial ruin and social isolation are creating a mental health pandemic that will continue well after COVID-19 lockdowns end. This mental health fallout may surpass the destruction from the virus with regard to disease, death, and distress. To understand which presidential candidate would best lead the mental health recovery, we identified three of the most critical issues in mental health and compared the plans of the two candidates.

Fighting the opioid epidemic

Over the last several years, the opioid epidemic has devastated American families and communities. Prior to the pandemic, drug overdoses were the leading cause of death for American adults under 50 years of age. The effects of COVID-19–enabled overdose deaths to rise even higher. Multiple elements of the pandemic – isolation, unemployment, and increased anxiety and depression – make those struggling with substance use even more vulnerable, and immediate and comprehensive action is needed to address this national tragedy.

Donald J. Trump: President Trump has been vocal and active in addressing this problem since he took office. One of the Trump administration’s successes is launching the Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission and rolling out a five-point strategy built around improving services, data, research, overdose-reversing drugs, and pain management. Last year, the Trump administration funded $10 billion over 5 years to combat both the opioid epidemic and mental health issues by building upon the 21st Century CURES Act. However, in this same budget, the administration proposed cutting funding by $600 million for SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is the top government agency for addressing and providing care for substance use.

President Trump also created an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use position in the Department of Health & Human Services, and appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist with a strong track record on fighting opioid abuse in Rhode Island, to the post.
 

Joe Biden: Former Vice President Biden emphasizes that substance use is “a disease of the brain,” refuting the long-held misconception that addiction is an issue of willpower. This stigmatization is very personal given that his own son Hunter reportedly suffered through mental health and substance use issues since his teenage years. However, Biden also had a major role in pushing forward the federal “war on drugs,” including his role in crafting the “Len Bias law.”

Mr. Biden has since released a multifaceted plan for reducing substance use, aiming to make prevention and treatment services more available through a $125 billion federal investment. There are also measures to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for triggering the crisis, stop the flow of fentanyl to the United States, and restrict incentive payments from manufacturers to doctors so as to limit the dosing and usage of powerful opioids.
 

Accessing health care

One of the main dividing lines in this election has been the battle to either gut or build upon the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This will have deep ramifications on people’s access to health mental health services. Since COVID-19 started, more than 50% of Americans have reported worsening mental health. This makes it crucial that each candidate’s mental health plan is judged by how they would expand access to insurance, address unenforced parity laws, and protect those who have a mental health disorder as a preexisting condition.

Mr. Trump: Following a failed Senate vote to repeal this law, the Trump administration took a piecemeal approach to dismantling the ACA that included removing the individual mandate, enabling states to introduce Medicaid work requirements, and reducing cost-sharing subsidies to insurers.

If a re-elected Trump administration pursued a complete repeal of the ACA law, many individuals with previous access to mental health and substance abuse treatment via Medicaid expansion may lose access altogether. In addition, key mechanisms aimed at making sure that mental health services are covered by private health plans may be lost, which could undermine policies to address opioids and suicide. On the other hand, the Trump administration’s move during the pandemic to expand telemedicine services has also expanded access to mental health services.

Mr. Biden: Mr. Biden’s plan would build upon the ACA by working to achieve parity between the treatment of mental health and physical health. The ACA itself strengthened the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (federal parity law), which Mr. Biden championed as vice president, by mandating that all private insurance cover mental health and substance abuse treatment. This act still exempts some health plans, such as larger employers; and many insurers have used loopholes in the policy to illegally deny what could be life-saving coverage.

It follows that those who can afford Mr. Biden’s proposed public option Medicare buy-in would receive more comprehensive mental health benefits. He also says he would invest in school and college mental health professionals, an important opportunity for early intervention given 75% of lifetime mental illness starts by age 24 years. While Mr. Biden has not stated a specific plan for addressing minority groups, whose mental health has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, he has acknowledged that this unmet need should be targeted.
 

Addressing suicide

More than 3,000 Americans attempt suicide every day. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for America’s youth and one of the top 10 leading causes of death across the population. Numerous strategies are necessary to address suicide, but one of the most decisive is gun control. Gun violence is inextricably tied to suicide: States where gun prevalence is higher see about four times the number of suicides because of guns, whereas nonfirearm suicide rates are the same as those seen elsewhere. In 2017, of the nearly 40,000 people who died of gun violence, 60% were attributable to suicides. Since the pandemic started, there have been increases in reported suicidal thoughts and a nearly 1,000% increase in use of the national crisis hotline. This is especially concerning given the uptick during the pandemic of gun purchases; as of September, more guns have been purchased this year than any year before.

Mr. Trump: Prior to coronavirus, the Trump administration was unwilling to enact gun control legislation. In early 2017, Mr. Trump removed an Obama-era bill that would have expanded the background check database. It would have added those deemed legally unfit to handle their own funds and those who received Social Security funds for mental health reasons. During the lockdown, the administration made an advisory ruling declaring gun shops as essential businesses that states should keep open.

Mr. Biden: The former vice president has a history of supporting gun control measures in his time as a senator and vice president. In the Senate, Mr. Biden supported both the Brady handgun bill in 1993 and a ban on assault weapons in 1994. As vice president, he was tasked by President Obama to push for a renewed assault weapons ban and a background check bill (Manchin-Toomey bill).

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Mr. Biden has suggested creating universal background checks and reinstating bans on assault rifle sales. He has said that he is also open to having a federal buyback program for assault rifles from gun owners.
 

Why this matters

The winner of the 2020 election will lead an electorate that is reeling from the health, economic, and social consequences COVID-19. The next administration needs to act swiftly to address the mental health pandemic and have a keen awareness of what is ahead. As Americans make their voting decision, consider who has the best plans not only to contain the virus but also the mental health crises that are ravaging our nation.

Dr. Vasan is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she is founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation. She also serves as chief medical officer of Real, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Innovation. Dr. Vasan has no conflicts of interest. Mr. Agbafe is a fellow at Stanford Brainstorm and a first-year medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Li is a policy intern at Stanford Brainstorm and an undergraduate student in the department of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. She has no conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most pressing public health challenges the United States has ever faced, and the resulting financial ruin and social isolation are creating a mental health pandemic that will continue well after COVID-19 lockdowns end. This mental health fallout may surpass the destruction from the virus with regard to disease, death, and distress. To understand which presidential candidate would best lead the mental health recovery, we identified three of the most critical issues in mental health and compared the plans of the two candidates.

Fighting the opioid epidemic

Over the last several years, the opioid epidemic has devastated American families and communities. Prior to the pandemic, drug overdoses were the leading cause of death for American adults under 50 years of age. The effects of COVID-19–enabled overdose deaths to rise even higher. Multiple elements of the pandemic – isolation, unemployment, and increased anxiety and depression – make those struggling with substance use even more vulnerable, and immediate and comprehensive action is needed to address this national tragedy.

Donald J. Trump: President Trump has been vocal and active in addressing this problem since he took office. One of the Trump administration’s successes is launching the Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission and rolling out a five-point strategy built around improving services, data, research, overdose-reversing drugs, and pain management. Last year, the Trump administration funded $10 billion over 5 years to combat both the opioid epidemic and mental health issues by building upon the 21st Century CURES Act. However, in this same budget, the administration proposed cutting funding by $600 million for SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is the top government agency for addressing and providing care for substance use.

President Trump also created an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use position in the Department of Health & Human Services, and appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist with a strong track record on fighting opioid abuse in Rhode Island, to the post.
 

Joe Biden: Former Vice President Biden emphasizes that substance use is “a disease of the brain,” refuting the long-held misconception that addiction is an issue of willpower. This stigmatization is very personal given that his own son Hunter reportedly suffered through mental health and substance use issues since his teenage years. However, Biden also had a major role in pushing forward the federal “war on drugs,” including his role in crafting the “Len Bias law.”

Mr. Biden has since released a multifaceted plan for reducing substance use, aiming to make prevention and treatment services more available through a $125 billion federal investment. There are also measures to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for triggering the crisis, stop the flow of fentanyl to the United States, and restrict incentive payments from manufacturers to doctors so as to limit the dosing and usage of powerful opioids.
 

Accessing health care

One of the main dividing lines in this election has been the battle to either gut or build upon the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This will have deep ramifications on people’s access to health mental health services. Since COVID-19 started, more than 50% of Americans have reported worsening mental health. This makes it crucial that each candidate’s mental health plan is judged by how they would expand access to insurance, address unenforced parity laws, and protect those who have a mental health disorder as a preexisting condition.

Mr. Trump: Following a failed Senate vote to repeal this law, the Trump administration took a piecemeal approach to dismantling the ACA that included removing the individual mandate, enabling states to introduce Medicaid work requirements, and reducing cost-sharing subsidies to insurers.

If a re-elected Trump administration pursued a complete repeal of the ACA law, many individuals with previous access to mental health and substance abuse treatment via Medicaid expansion may lose access altogether. In addition, key mechanisms aimed at making sure that mental health services are covered by private health plans may be lost, which could undermine policies to address opioids and suicide. On the other hand, the Trump administration’s move during the pandemic to expand telemedicine services has also expanded access to mental health services.

Mr. Biden: Mr. Biden’s plan would build upon the ACA by working to achieve parity between the treatment of mental health and physical health. The ACA itself strengthened the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (federal parity law), which Mr. Biden championed as vice president, by mandating that all private insurance cover mental health and substance abuse treatment. This act still exempts some health plans, such as larger employers; and many insurers have used loopholes in the policy to illegally deny what could be life-saving coverage.

It follows that those who can afford Mr. Biden’s proposed public option Medicare buy-in would receive more comprehensive mental health benefits. He also says he would invest in school and college mental health professionals, an important opportunity for early intervention given 75% of lifetime mental illness starts by age 24 years. While Mr. Biden has not stated a specific plan for addressing minority groups, whose mental health has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, he has acknowledged that this unmet need should be targeted.
 

Addressing suicide

More than 3,000 Americans attempt suicide every day. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for America’s youth and one of the top 10 leading causes of death across the population. Numerous strategies are necessary to address suicide, but one of the most decisive is gun control. Gun violence is inextricably tied to suicide: States where gun prevalence is higher see about four times the number of suicides because of guns, whereas nonfirearm suicide rates are the same as those seen elsewhere. In 2017, of the nearly 40,000 people who died of gun violence, 60% were attributable to suicides. Since the pandemic started, there have been increases in reported suicidal thoughts and a nearly 1,000% increase in use of the national crisis hotline. This is especially concerning given the uptick during the pandemic of gun purchases; as of September, more guns have been purchased this year than any year before.

Mr. Trump: Prior to coronavirus, the Trump administration was unwilling to enact gun control legislation. In early 2017, Mr. Trump removed an Obama-era bill that would have expanded the background check database. It would have added those deemed legally unfit to handle their own funds and those who received Social Security funds for mental health reasons. During the lockdown, the administration made an advisory ruling declaring gun shops as essential businesses that states should keep open.

Mr. Biden: The former vice president has a history of supporting gun control measures in his time as a senator and vice president. In the Senate, Mr. Biden supported both the Brady handgun bill in 1993 and a ban on assault weapons in 1994. As vice president, he was tasked by President Obama to push for a renewed assault weapons ban and a background check bill (Manchin-Toomey bill).

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Mr. Biden has suggested creating universal background checks and reinstating bans on assault rifle sales. He has said that he is also open to having a federal buyback program for assault rifles from gun owners.
 

Why this matters

The winner of the 2020 election will lead an electorate that is reeling from the health, economic, and social consequences COVID-19. The next administration needs to act swiftly to address the mental health pandemic and have a keen awareness of what is ahead. As Americans make their voting decision, consider who has the best plans not only to contain the virus but also the mental health crises that are ravaging our nation.

Dr. Vasan is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she is founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation. She also serves as chief medical officer of Real, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Innovation. Dr. Vasan has no conflicts of interest. Mr. Agbafe is a fellow at Stanford Brainstorm and a first-year medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Li is a policy intern at Stanford Brainstorm and an undergraduate student in the department of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. She has no conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most pressing public health challenges the United States has ever faced, and the resulting financial ruin and social isolation are creating a mental health pandemic that will continue well after COVID-19 lockdowns end. This mental health fallout may surpass the destruction from the virus with regard to disease, death, and distress. To understand which presidential candidate would best lead the mental health recovery, we identified three of the most critical issues in mental health and compared the plans of the two candidates.

Fighting the opioid epidemic

Over the last several years, the opioid epidemic has devastated American families and communities. Prior to the pandemic, drug overdoses were the leading cause of death for American adults under 50 years of age. The effects of COVID-19–enabled overdose deaths to rise even higher. Multiple elements of the pandemic – isolation, unemployment, and increased anxiety and depression – make those struggling with substance use even more vulnerable, and immediate and comprehensive action is needed to address this national tragedy.

Donald J. Trump: President Trump has been vocal and active in addressing this problem since he took office. One of the Trump administration’s successes is launching the Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission and rolling out a five-point strategy built around improving services, data, research, overdose-reversing drugs, and pain management. Last year, the Trump administration funded $10 billion over 5 years to combat both the opioid epidemic and mental health issues by building upon the 21st Century CURES Act. However, in this same budget, the administration proposed cutting funding by $600 million for SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is the top government agency for addressing and providing care for substance use.

President Trump also created an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use position in the Department of Health & Human Services, and appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist with a strong track record on fighting opioid abuse in Rhode Island, to the post.
 

Joe Biden: Former Vice President Biden emphasizes that substance use is “a disease of the brain,” refuting the long-held misconception that addiction is an issue of willpower. This stigmatization is very personal given that his own son Hunter reportedly suffered through mental health and substance use issues since his teenage years. However, Biden also had a major role in pushing forward the federal “war on drugs,” including his role in crafting the “Len Bias law.”

Mr. Biden has since released a multifaceted plan for reducing substance use, aiming to make prevention and treatment services more available through a $125 billion federal investment. There are also measures to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for triggering the crisis, stop the flow of fentanyl to the United States, and restrict incentive payments from manufacturers to doctors so as to limit the dosing and usage of powerful opioids.
 

Accessing health care

One of the main dividing lines in this election has been the battle to either gut or build upon the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This will have deep ramifications on people’s access to health mental health services. Since COVID-19 started, more than 50% of Americans have reported worsening mental health. This makes it crucial that each candidate’s mental health plan is judged by how they would expand access to insurance, address unenforced parity laws, and protect those who have a mental health disorder as a preexisting condition.

Mr. Trump: Following a failed Senate vote to repeal this law, the Trump administration took a piecemeal approach to dismantling the ACA that included removing the individual mandate, enabling states to introduce Medicaid work requirements, and reducing cost-sharing subsidies to insurers.

If a re-elected Trump administration pursued a complete repeal of the ACA law, many individuals with previous access to mental health and substance abuse treatment via Medicaid expansion may lose access altogether. In addition, key mechanisms aimed at making sure that mental health services are covered by private health plans may be lost, which could undermine policies to address opioids and suicide. On the other hand, the Trump administration’s move during the pandemic to expand telemedicine services has also expanded access to mental health services.

Mr. Biden: Mr. Biden’s plan would build upon the ACA by working to achieve parity between the treatment of mental health and physical health. The ACA itself strengthened the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (federal parity law), which Mr. Biden championed as vice president, by mandating that all private insurance cover mental health and substance abuse treatment. This act still exempts some health plans, such as larger employers; and many insurers have used loopholes in the policy to illegally deny what could be life-saving coverage.

It follows that those who can afford Mr. Biden’s proposed public option Medicare buy-in would receive more comprehensive mental health benefits. He also says he would invest in school and college mental health professionals, an important opportunity for early intervention given 75% of lifetime mental illness starts by age 24 years. While Mr. Biden has not stated a specific plan for addressing minority groups, whose mental health has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, he has acknowledged that this unmet need should be targeted.
 

Addressing suicide

More than 3,000 Americans attempt suicide every day. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for America’s youth and one of the top 10 leading causes of death across the population. Numerous strategies are necessary to address suicide, but one of the most decisive is gun control. Gun violence is inextricably tied to suicide: States where gun prevalence is higher see about four times the number of suicides because of guns, whereas nonfirearm suicide rates are the same as those seen elsewhere. In 2017, of the nearly 40,000 people who died of gun violence, 60% were attributable to suicides. Since the pandemic started, there have been increases in reported suicidal thoughts and a nearly 1,000% increase in use of the national crisis hotline. This is especially concerning given the uptick during the pandemic of gun purchases; as of September, more guns have been purchased this year than any year before.

Mr. Trump: Prior to coronavirus, the Trump administration was unwilling to enact gun control legislation. In early 2017, Mr. Trump removed an Obama-era bill that would have expanded the background check database. It would have added those deemed legally unfit to handle their own funds and those who received Social Security funds for mental health reasons. During the lockdown, the administration made an advisory ruling declaring gun shops as essential businesses that states should keep open.

Mr. Biden: The former vice president has a history of supporting gun control measures in his time as a senator and vice president. In the Senate, Mr. Biden supported both the Brady handgun bill in 1993 and a ban on assault weapons in 1994. As vice president, he was tasked by President Obama to push for a renewed assault weapons ban and a background check bill (Manchin-Toomey bill).

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Mr. Biden has suggested creating universal background checks and reinstating bans on assault rifle sales. He has said that he is also open to having a federal buyback program for assault rifles from gun owners.
 

Why this matters

The winner of the 2020 election will lead an electorate that is reeling from the health, economic, and social consequences COVID-19. The next administration needs to act swiftly to address the mental health pandemic and have a keen awareness of what is ahead. As Americans make their voting decision, consider who has the best plans not only to contain the virus but also the mental health crises that are ravaging our nation.

Dr. Vasan is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she is founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation. She also serves as chief medical officer of Real, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Innovation. Dr. Vasan has no conflicts of interest. Mr. Agbafe is a fellow at Stanford Brainstorm and a first-year medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Li is a policy intern at Stanford Brainstorm and an undergraduate student in the department of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. She has no conflicts of interest.

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus that is causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was first reported in late 2019.¹ As of mid-October 2020, >39 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 had been reported worldwide, and the United States was the most affected country with >8 million confirmed cases.² Although the reported symptoms of COVID-19 are primarily respiratory with acute respiratory distress syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 has also been shown to affect other organs, including the brain, and there are emerging reports of neurologic symptoms due to COVID-19.³

Psychological endurance will be a challenge that many individuals will continue to face during and after the pandemic. Physical and social isolation, the disruption of daily routines, financial stress, food insecurity, and numerous other potential triggers for stress response have all been intensified due to this pandemic, creating a situation in which many individuals’ mental well-being and stability is likely to be threatened. The uncertain environment is likely to increase the frequency and/or severity of mental health problems worldwide. Psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety and depression have been reported among patients with SARS-CoV-1 during the previous severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic.⁴

In this article, we summarize 8 recent studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses to provide an overview of the psychiatric consequences of COVID-19. These studies are summarized in the Table.^5-12 Clearly, the studies reviewed here are preliminary evidence, and our understanding of COVID-19’s effects on mental health, particularly its long-term sequelae, is certain to evolve with future research. However, these 8 studies describe how COVID-19 is currently affecting mental health among health care workers, patients, and the general public.

1. Vindegaard N, Benros ME. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: systematic review of the current evidence. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;89:531-542. 

Vindegaard and Benros⁵ conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the impact of COVID-19–related psychiatric complications and COVID-19’s effect on the mental health of patients infected with COVID-19, as well as non-infected individuals.

Study design

• This systematic review included 43 studies that measured psychiatric disorders or symptoms in patients with COVID-19 and in a non-infected group.
• The non-infected group consisted of psychiatric patients, health care workers, and the general population.
• The review excluded studies with participants who were children, adolescents, or older adults, or had substance abuse or somatic disorders.

Outcomes

• Only 2 studies included patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Of the remaining 41 studies, 2 studies examined the indirect effects of the pandemic on psychiatric patients, 20 studies examined health care workers, and 19 studies examined the general population. Eighteen of the studies were case-control studies and 25 had no control group

Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. One case-control study showed an increased prevalence of depression in patients with COVID-19 who had recently recovered (29.2%) compared with participants who were in quarantine (9.8%). The other study showed posttraumatic stress symptoms in 96% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were stable.

Continue to: Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders

Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Two studies found increased symptoms of psychiatric disorders.

Health care workers. Depression (6 studies) and anxiety symptoms (8 studies) were increased among health care workers compared with the general public or administrative staff. However, 2 studies found no difference in these symptoms among health care workers compared with the general public. Poor sleep quality and more obsessive-compulsive symptoms were reported in health care workers compared with the general public.

General public. Compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic, lower psychological well-being and increased rates of depression and anxiety were noted among the general public. Higher rates of anxiety and depression were also found in parents of children who were hospitalized during the pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. One study found no difference between being in quarantine or not.

• Current or prior medical illness was associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression. One study found higher social media exposure was associated with increased anxiety and depression. Female health care workers had higher rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Conclusions/limitations

This systematic review included 39 studies from Asia and 4 from Europe, but none from other continents, which may affect the external validity of the results. Most of the studies included were not case-controlled, which limits the ability to comment on association. Because there is little research on this topic, only 2 of the studies focused on psychiatric symptoms in patients with COVID-19. In most studies, the reporting of psychiatric dis­orders was vague and only a few studies used assessment tools, such as the General Anxiety Disorder-7 or the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, for reporting depression and anxiety.

2. Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, et al. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;88:901-907.

Pappa et al⁶ examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health care workers, with specific focus on the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia.

Continue to: Study design

 

 

Study design

• Researchers searched for studies on PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar. A random effect meta-analysis was used on the included 13 cross-sectional studies with a total of 33,062 participants. Twelve of the included studies were conducted in China and 1 in Singapore.
• Evaluation of the risk of bias of included studies was assessed using a modified form of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), with a score >3 considered as low risk of bias.

Outcomes

• Results were categorized by gender, rating scales, severity of depression, and professional groups for subgroup analysis.
• The primary outcomes were prevalence (p), confidence intervals (CI), and percentage prevalence (p × 100%). Studies with a low risk of bias were sub-analyzed again (n = 9).
• Anxiety was evaluated in 12 studies, depression in 10 studies, and insomnia in 5 studies (all 5 studies had a low risk of bias).
• There was a pooled prevalence of 23.2% for anxiety (29% female, 20.9% male), 22.8% for depression (26.87% female, 20.3% male), and 38.9% for insomnia. Female participants showed higher rates of anxiety and depression, while no subgroup analysis was performed for insomnia.
• The subgroup analysis of pooled data after excluding each study showed that no single study had >2% effect on the pooled analysis.
• The subgroup analysis by gender, professional group, and severity suggested that there was an increased prevalence of anxiety and depression in female health care workers, which was consistent with the increased prevalence in the general population.

Conclusions/limitations

There was a questionable effect of between-study heterogeneity. Different studies used different rating scales and different cutoff points on the same scales, which might make the results of pooled analysis unreliable, or might be assumed to increase the confidence. Despite the use of different scales and cutoff points, there was still a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia. All studies were conducted in a single geographical region (12 in China and 1 in Singapore). None of the included studies had a control group, either from the general population or compared with pre-COVID-19 rates of depression, anxiety, and insomnia in health care workers.

3. Loades ME, Chatburn E, Higson-Sweeney N, et al. Rapid systematic review: the impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19 [published online June 3, 2020]. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;S0890-8567(20)30337-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.05.009.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to long periods of isolation/quarantine, social distancing, and school closures, all which have resulted in significant upheaval of the lives of children and adolescents. Loades et al⁷ explored the impact of loneliness and disease-containment measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review of 63 studies examining the impact of loneliness or disease-containment measures on healthy children and adolescents. located through a search of Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Sixty-one studies were observational, and 2 were interventional.
• The search yielded studies published between 1946 and March 29, 2020.
• The quality of studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool.

Continue to: Outcomes

 

 

Outcomes

• Results by mental health symptom or disorder were categorized as follows:

Depression. Forty-five studies examined depressive symptoms and loneliness; only 6 studies included children age <10. Most reported a moderate to large correlation (0.12 ≤ r ≤ 0.81), and most of them included a measure of depressive symptoms. The association was stronger in older and female participants. Loneliness was associated with depression in 12 longitudinal studies that followed participants for 1 to 3 years. However, 3 studies (2 in children and 1 in adolescents) found no association between loneliness and depression at follow-up.

Anxiety. Twenty-three studies examined symptoms of anxiety and found a small to moderate correlation between loneliness/social isolation and anxiety (0.18 ≤ r ≤ 0.54), with duration of loneliness being more strongly associated with anxiety than intensity of loneliness. However, social anxiety or generalized anxiety were associated more with loneliness ([0.33 ≤ r ≤ 0.72] and [r = 0.37, 0.40], respectively). Three longitudinal studies found associations between loneliness and subsequent anxiety, and 1 study did not find an association between loneliness at age 5 and increased anxiety at age 12.

Mental health and well-being. Two studies found negative associations between social isolation/loneliness and well-being and mental health.

Conclusions/limitations

There is decent evidence of a strong association between loneliness/social isolation in childhood/adolescence and the development of depression, with some suggestion of increased rates in females. However, there was a small to moderate association with anxiety with increased rates in males. The length of social isolation was a strong predictor of future mental illness. Children who experienced enforced quarantine were 5 times more likely to require mental health services for posttraumatic stress symptoms.

Continue to: The compiled evidence presented in this study...

The compiled evidence presented in this study looked at previous similar scenarios of enforced social isolations; however, it cannot necessarily predict the effect of COVID-19–associated social distancing measures. Most of the studies included were cross-sectional studies and did not control for confounders. Social isolation in childhood or adolescence may be associated with developing mental health problems later in life and should be considered when implementing school closures and switching to online classes. Loades et al⁷ suggested that the increased rate of electronic communication and use of social media in children and adolescents may mitigate this predicted effect of social isolation.

4. Rogers JP, Chesney E, Oliver D, et al. Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(7):611-627.

To identify possible psychiatric and neuro­psychiatric implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, Rogers et al⁸ examined 2 previous coronavirus epidemics, SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis and systematic review of 65 studies and 7 preprints from 10 countries, including approximately 3,559 case studies of psychiatric and neuropsychiatric symptoms in participants infected with the 3 major coronavirus-induced illnesses (SARS, MERS, and COVID-19).
• Pure neurologic complications and indirect effects of the epidemics were excluded.
• The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines.
• The quality of the studies was assessed using the NOS.

Outcomes

• Outcomes measured were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition), or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment.
• Results were stratified as acute or post-illness:

Acute illness. Delirium was the most frequently reported symptom in all 3 coronavirus infections. Depression, anxiety, or insomnia were also reported in MERS and SARS infections. Mania was described in SARS, but it was almost entirely present in cases treated with high-dose corticosteroids, which are not used routinely for COVID-19.

Continue to: Post-illness

Post-illness. There was increased incidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics (SARS and MERS), but there was no control group for comparison. There was not enough data available for COVID-19.

Conclusions/limitations

Three studies were deemed to be of high quality, 32 were low quality, and 30 were moderate quality. Despite the high incidence of psychiatric symptoms in previous coronavirus infections, it was difficult to draw conclusions due to a lack of adequate control groups and predominantly low-quality studies. The difference in treatment strategies, such as the use of high-dose corticosteroids for MERS and SARS, but not for COVID-19, made it difficult to accurately predict a response for COVID-19 based on previous epidemics.

5. Shiozawa P, Uchida RR. An updated systematic review on the coronavirus pandemic: lessons for psychiatry. Braz J Psychiatry. 2020;42(3):330-331.

Schiozawa et al⁹ conducted a systematic review of articles to identify psychiatric issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review of 10 articles (7 articles from China, 1 from the United States, 1 from Japan, and 1 from Korea) that described strategies for coping with the COVID-19 pandemic and/or provided a descriptive analysis of the clinical scenario, with an emphasis on psychiatric comorbidities.
• The study used PRISMA guidelines to summarize the findings of those 10 studies. There were no pre-set outcomes or inclusion criteria.

Outcomes

• The compiled results of the 10 studies showed high rates of new-onset insomnia, anxiety, and relapse of underlying conditions such as depression.
• One study found increased hospital visits and misinterpretations of any symptom in patients with health anxiety (health anxiety was not defined).
• One study found some benefit from multidisciplinary psychological care and online counseling for both patients and health care workers.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations

Because each of the 10 studies examined extremely different outcomes, researchers were unable to compile data from all studies to draw a conclusion.

6. Salari N, Hosseinian-Far A, Jalali R, et al. Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Health. 2020;16(1):57.

Salari et al¹⁰ examined the prevalence of stress, anxiety, and depression in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 observational studies examining the prevalence of anxiety and stress in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The STROBE checklist was used to assess the quality of studies.
• Only studies judged as medium to high quality were included in the analysis.

Outcomes

• The prevalence of stress was 29.6% (5 studies, sample size 9,074 individuals).
• The prevalence of anxiety was 31.9% (17 studies, sample size 63,439 individuals).
• The prevalence of depression was 33.7% (14 studies, sample size of 44,531 individuals).
• A sub-analysis of rates by continent revealed that Asia had highest prevalence of anxiety and depression (32.9% and 35.3%, respectively). Europe had the highest rates of stress (31.9%).

Conclusions/limitations

There is an increased prevalence of anxiety, stress, and depression in the general population amid the COVID-19 pandemic. None of the included studies compared rates to before the pandemic. Most studies used online surveys, which increased the chance of sample bias. Most studies originated from China and Iran, which had the highest rates of infection when this review was conducted.

Continue to: #7

 

 

7. Preti E, Di Mattei V, Perego G, et al. The psychological impact of epidemic and pandemic outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review of the evidence. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020;22(8):43.

Preti et al¹¹ performed a review of the literature to determine the impact of epidemic/pandemic outbreaks on health care workers’ mental health.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a rapid systematic review of 44 studies examining the psychological impact of epidemic/pandemic outbreaks on health care workers.
• Of the 44 studies, 27 (62%) referred to the SARS outbreak, 5 (11%) referred to the MERS outbreak, 5 (11%) referred to the COVID-19 outbreak, 3 (7%) referred to the influenza A virus subtype H1N1 outbreak, 3 (7%) referred to the Ebola virus disease outbreak, and 1 (2%) referred to the Asian lineage avian influenza outbreak.

Outcomes

• During these outbreaks, insomnia was found in 34% to 36.1% of health care workers, and severe anxiety symptoms in 45%.
• The prevalence of PTSD-like symptoms among health care workers during the outbreaks was 11% to 73.4%. Studies of the COVID-19 pandemic reported the highest prevalence of PTSD-like symptoms (71.5% to 73%). After 1 to 3 years following an outbreak, 10% to 40% of health care workers still had significant PTSD-like symptoms.
• Anxiety was reported in 45% of health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• A sub-analysis revealed a positive association between anxiety, PTSD, and stress symptoms and being female gender, being a nurse, and working on high-risk units.
• Perceived organizational support and confidence in protective measures were negatively associated with psychological symptoms.

Conclusions/limitations

Lessons from previous outbreaks and early data from the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that health care workers experience higher levels of psychological symptoms during outbreaks. Findings of this study suggest that organizational support and confidence in protective measures can mitigate this effect. To help preserve the well-being of health care workers, adequate training should be provided, appropriate personal protective equipment should be readily available, and support services should be well established.

8. Varatharaj A, Thomas N, Ellul MA, et al. Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 in 153 patients: a UK-wide surveillance study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(10):875-882.

Varatharaj et al¹² conducted a surveillance study in patients in the United Kingdom to understand the breadth of neurologic complications of COVID-19.

Continue to: Study design

 

 

Study design

• Researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence of psychiatric and neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 across multiple centers in United Kingdom. Data were collected through the anonymous online reporting portals of several major neurology and psychiatric associations. Retrospective reporting was allowed.
• Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as:

Confirmed COVID-19 (114 cases) if polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of respiratory samples (eg, nasal or throat swab) or CSF was positive for viral RNA or if serology was positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) or immunoglobulin G (IgG).

Probable COVID-19 (6 cases) if a chest radiograph or chest CT was consistent with COVID-19 but PCR and serology were negative or not performed.

Possible COVID-19 (5 cases) if the disease was suspected on clinical grounds by the notifying clinician, but PCR, serology, and chest imaging were negative or not performed.

Outcomes

• Sixty-two percent of patients presented with cerebrovascular events (intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, vasculitis, or other). Thirty-one percent of patients presented with altered mental status (AMS), and 5% had peripheral neurologic disorders.
• Of those with AMS, 18% (7 patients) had encephalitis, 23% (9 patients) had unspecified encephalopathy, and 59% (23 patients) had a psychiatric diagnosis as classified by the notifying psychiatrist or neuropsychiatrist. Ten patients (43%) of the 23 patients with neuropsychiatric disorders had new-onset psychosis, while only 2 patients had an exacerbation of a preexisting mental illness.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

 

 

Conclusions/limitations

This study had an over-representation of older adults. There was no control group for comparison, and the definition of confirmed COVID-19 included a positive IgM or IgG without a positive PCR or chest imaging. Although all psychiatric conditions reported were confirmed by a psychiatrist or neuropsychiatrist, there were no pre-defined criteria used for reported diagnoses.

Bottom Line

Evidence from studies of previous outbreaks and early data from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggest that during outbreaks, health care workers experience higher levels of psychological symptoms than the general population. There has been an increased prevalence of anxiety, stress, poor sleep quality, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and depression among the general population during the pandemic. COVID-19 can also impact the CNS directly and result in delirium, cerebrovascular events, encephalitis, unspecified encephalopathy, altered mental status, or peripheral neurologic disorders. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are likely to have increased symptoms and should be monitored for breakthrough symptoms and acute exacerbations.

Related Resources

• Ryznar E. Evaluating patients’ decision-making capacity during COVID-19. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):34-40.
• Freudenreich O, Kontos N, Querques J. COVID-19 and patients with serious mental illness. 2020;19(9):24-27,33-39.
• Esterwood E, Saeed SA. Past epidemics, natural disasters, COVID19, and mental health: learning from history as we deal with the present and prepare for the future [published online August 16, 2020]. Psychiatr Q. 2020:1-13. doi: 10.1007/s11126-020-09808-4.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus that is causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was first reported in late 2019.¹ As of mid-October 2020, >39 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 had been reported worldwide, and the United States was the most affected country with >8 million confirmed cases.² Although the reported symptoms of COVID-19 are primarily respiratory with acute respiratory distress syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 has also been shown to affect other organs, including the brain, and there are emerging reports of neurologic symptoms due to COVID-19.³

Psychological endurance will be a challenge that many individuals will continue to face during and after the pandemic. Physical and social isolation, the disruption of daily routines, financial stress, food insecurity, and numerous other potential triggers for stress response have all been intensified due to this pandemic, creating a situation in which many individuals’ mental well-being and stability is likely to be threatened. The uncertain environment is likely to increase the frequency and/or severity of mental health problems worldwide. Psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety and depression have been reported among patients with SARS-CoV-1 during the previous severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic.⁴

In this article, we summarize 8 recent studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses to provide an overview of the psychiatric consequences of COVID-19. These studies are summarized in the Table.^5-12 Clearly, the studies reviewed here are preliminary evidence, and our understanding of COVID-19’s effects on mental health, particularly its long-term sequelae, is certain to evolve with future research. However, these 8 studies describe how COVID-19 is currently affecting mental health among health care workers, patients, and the general public.

1. Vindegaard N, Benros ME. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: systematic review of the current evidence. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;89:531-542. 

Vindegaard and Benros⁵ conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the impact of COVID-19–related psychiatric complications and COVID-19’s effect on the mental health of patients infected with COVID-19, as well as non-infected individuals.

Study design

• This systematic review included 43 studies that measured psychiatric disorders or symptoms in patients with COVID-19 and in a non-infected group.
• The non-infected group consisted of psychiatric patients, health care workers, and the general population.
• The review excluded studies with participants who were children, adolescents, or older adults, or had substance abuse or somatic disorders.

Outcomes

• Only 2 studies included patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Of the remaining 41 studies, 2 studies examined the indirect effects of the pandemic on psychiatric patients, 20 studies examined health care workers, and 19 studies examined the general population. Eighteen of the studies were case-control studies and 25 had no control group

Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. One case-control study showed an increased prevalence of depression in patients with COVID-19 who had recently recovered (29.2%) compared with participants who were in quarantine (9.8%). The other study showed posttraumatic stress symptoms in 96% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were stable.

Continue to: Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders

Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Two studies found increased symptoms of psychiatric disorders.

Health care workers. Depression (6 studies) and anxiety symptoms (8 studies) were increased among health care workers compared with the general public or administrative staff. However, 2 studies found no difference in these symptoms among health care workers compared with the general public. Poor sleep quality and more obsessive-compulsive symptoms were reported in health care workers compared with the general public.

General public. Compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic, lower psychological well-being and increased rates of depression and anxiety were noted among the general public. Higher rates of anxiety and depression were also found in parents of children who were hospitalized during the pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. One study found no difference between being in quarantine or not.

• Current or prior medical illness was associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression. One study found higher social media exposure was associated with increased anxiety and depression. Female health care workers had higher rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Conclusions/limitations

This systematic review included 39 studies from Asia and 4 from Europe, but none from other continents, which may affect the external validity of the results. Most of the studies included were not case-controlled, which limits the ability to comment on association. Because there is little research on this topic, only 2 of the studies focused on psychiatric symptoms in patients with COVID-19. In most studies, the reporting of psychiatric dis­orders was vague and only a few studies used assessment tools, such as the General Anxiety Disorder-7 or the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, for reporting depression and anxiety.

2. Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, et al. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;88:901-907.

Pappa et al⁶ examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health care workers, with specific focus on the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia.

Continue to: Study design

 

 

Study design

• Researchers searched for studies on PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar. A random effect meta-analysis was used on the included 13 cross-sectional studies with a total of 33,062 participants. Twelve of the included studies were conducted in China and 1 in Singapore.
• Evaluation of the risk of bias of included studies was assessed using a modified form of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), with a score >3 considered as low risk of bias.

Outcomes

• Results were categorized by gender, rating scales, severity of depression, and professional groups for subgroup analysis.
• The primary outcomes were prevalence (p), confidence intervals (CI), and percentage prevalence (p × 100%). Studies with a low risk of bias were sub-analyzed again (n = 9).
• Anxiety was evaluated in 12 studies, depression in 10 studies, and insomnia in 5 studies (all 5 studies had a low risk of bias).
• There was a pooled prevalence of 23.2% for anxiety (29% female, 20.9% male), 22.8% for depression (26.87% female, 20.3% male), and 38.9% for insomnia. Female participants showed higher rates of anxiety and depression, while no subgroup analysis was performed for insomnia.
• The subgroup analysis of pooled data after excluding each study showed that no single study had >2% effect on the pooled analysis.
• The subgroup analysis by gender, professional group, and severity suggested that there was an increased prevalence of anxiety and depression in female health care workers, which was consistent with the increased prevalence in the general population.

Conclusions/limitations

There was a questionable effect of between-study heterogeneity. Different studies used different rating scales and different cutoff points on the same scales, which might make the results of pooled analysis unreliable, or might be assumed to increase the confidence. Despite the use of different scales and cutoff points, there was still a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia. All studies were conducted in a single geographical region (12 in China and 1 in Singapore). None of the included studies had a control group, either from the general population or compared with pre-COVID-19 rates of depression, anxiety, and insomnia in health care workers.

3. Loades ME, Chatburn E, Higson-Sweeney N, et al. Rapid systematic review: the impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19 [published online June 3, 2020]. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;S0890-8567(20)30337-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.05.009.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to long periods of isolation/quarantine, social distancing, and school closures, all which have resulted in significant upheaval of the lives of children and adolescents. Loades et al⁷ explored the impact of loneliness and disease-containment measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review of 63 studies examining the impact of loneliness or disease-containment measures on healthy children and adolescents. located through a search of Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Sixty-one studies were observational, and 2 were interventional.
• The search yielded studies published between 1946 and March 29, 2020.
• The quality of studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool.

Continue to: Outcomes

 

 

Outcomes

• Results by mental health symptom or disorder were categorized as follows:

Depression. Forty-five studies examined depressive symptoms and loneliness; only 6 studies included children age <10. Most reported a moderate to large correlation (0.12 ≤ r ≤ 0.81), and most of them included a measure of depressive symptoms. The association was stronger in older and female participants. Loneliness was associated with depression in 12 longitudinal studies that followed participants for 1 to 3 years. However, 3 studies (2 in children and 1 in adolescents) found no association between loneliness and depression at follow-up.

Anxiety. Twenty-three studies examined symptoms of anxiety and found a small to moderate correlation between loneliness/social isolation and anxiety (0.18 ≤ r ≤ 0.54), with duration of loneliness being more strongly associated with anxiety than intensity of loneliness. However, social anxiety or generalized anxiety were associated more with loneliness ([0.33 ≤ r ≤ 0.72] and [r = 0.37, 0.40], respectively). Three longitudinal studies found associations between loneliness and subsequent anxiety, and 1 study did not find an association between loneliness at age 5 and increased anxiety at age 12.

Mental health and well-being. Two studies found negative associations between social isolation/loneliness and well-being and mental health.

Conclusions/limitations

There is decent evidence of a strong association between loneliness/social isolation in childhood/adolescence and the development of depression, with some suggestion of increased rates in females. However, there was a small to moderate association with anxiety with increased rates in males. The length of social isolation was a strong predictor of future mental illness. Children who experienced enforced quarantine were 5 times more likely to require mental health services for posttraumatic stress symptoms.

Continue to: The compiled evidence presented in this study...

The compiled evidence presented in this study looked at previous similar scenarios of enforced social isolations; however, it cannot necessarily predict the effect of COVID-19–associated social distancing measures. Most of the studies included were cross-sectional studies and did not control for confounders. Social isolation in childhood or adolescence may be associated with developing mental health problems later in life and should be considered when implementing school closures and switching to online classes. Loades et al⁷ suggested that the increased rate of electronic communication and use of social media in children and adolescents may mitigate this predicted effect of social isolation.

4. Rogers JP, Chesney E, Oliver D, et al. Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(7):611-627.

To identify possible psychiatric and neuro­psychiatric implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, Rogers et al⁸ examined 2 previous coronavirus epidemics, SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis and systematic review of 65 studies and 7 preprints from 10 countries, including approximately 3,559 case studies of psychiatric and neuropsychiatric symptoms in participants infected with the 3 major coronavirus-induced illnesses (SARS, MERS, and COVID-19).
• Pure neurologic complications and indirect effects of the epidemics were excluded.
• The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines.
• The quality of the studies was assessed using the NOS.

Outcomes

• Outcomes measured were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition), or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment.
• Results were stratified as acute or post-illness:

Acute illness. Delirium was the most frequently reported symptom in all 3 coronavirus infections. Depression, anxiety, or insomnia were also reported in MERS and SARS infections. Mania was described in SARS, but it was almost entirely present in cases treated with high-dose corticosteroids, which are not used routinely for COVID-19.

Continue to: Post-illness

Post-illness. There was increased incidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics (SARS and MERS), but there was no control group for comparison. There was not enough data available for COVID-19.

Conclusions/limitations

Three studies were deemed to be of high quality, 32 were low quality, and 30 were moderate quality. Despite the high incidence of psychiatric symptoms in previous coronavirus infections, it was difficult to draw conclusions due to a lack of adequate control groups and predominantly low-quality studies. The difference in treatment strategies, such as the use of high-dose corticosteroids for MERS and SARS, but not for COVID-19, made it difficult to accurately predict a response for COVID-19 based on previous epidemics.

5. Shiozawa P, Uchida RR. An updated systematic review on the coronavirus pandemic: lessons for psychiatry. Braz J Psychiatry. 2020;42(3):330-331.

Schiozawa et al⁹ conducted a systematic review of articles to identify psychiatric issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review of 10 articles (7 articles from China, 1 from the United States, 1 from Japan, and 1 from Korea) that described strategies for coping with the COVID-19 pandemic and/or provided a descriptive analysis of the clinical scenario, with an emphasis on psychiatric comorbidities.
• The study used PRISMA guidelines to summarize the findings of those 10 studies. There were no pre-set outcomes or inclusion criteria.

Outcomes

• The compiled results of the 10 studies showed high rates of new-onset insomnia, anxiety, and relapse of underlying conditions such as depression.
• One study found increased hospital visits and misinterpretations of any symptom in patients with health anxiety (health anxiety was not defined).
• One study found some benefit from multidisciplinary psychological care and online counseling for both patients and health care workers.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations

Because each of the 10 studies examined extremely different outcomes, researchers were unable to compile data from all studies to draw a conclusion.

6. Salari N, Hosseinian-Far A, Jalali R, et al. Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Health. 2020;16(1):57.

Salari et al¹⁰ examined the prevalence of stress, anxiety, and depression in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 observational studies examining the prevalence of anxiety and stress in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The STROBE checklist was used to assess the quality of studies.
• Only studies judged as medium to high quality were included in the analysis.

Outcomes

• The prevalence of stress was 29.6% (5 studies, sample size 9,074 individuals).
• The prevalence of anxiety was 31.9% (17 studies, sample size 63,439 individuals).
• The prevalence of depression was 33.7% (14 studies, sample size of 44,531 individuals).
• A sub-analysis of rates by continent revealed that Asia had highest prevalence of anxiety and depression (32.9% and 35.3%, respectively). Europe had the highest rates of stress (31.9%).

Conclusions/limitations

There is an increased prevalence of anxiety, stress, and depression in the general population amid the COVID-19 pandemic. None of the included studies compared rates to before the pandemic. Most studies used online surveys, which increased the chance of sample bias. Most studies originated from China and Iran, which had the highest rates of infection when this review was conducted.

Continue to: #7

 

 

7. Preti E, Di Mattei V, Perego G, et al. The psychological impact of epidemic and pandemic outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review of the evidence. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020;22(8):43.

Preti et al¹¹ performed a review of the literature to determine the impact of epidemic/pandemic outbreaks on health care workers’ mental health.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a rapid systematic review of 44 studies examining the psychological impact of epidemic/pandemic outbreaks on health care workers.
• Of the 44 studies, 27 (62%) referred to the SARS outbreak, 5 (11%) referred to the MERS outbreak, 5 (11%) referred to the COVID-19 outbreak, 3 (7%) referred to the influenza A virus subtype H1N1 outbreak, 3 (7%) referred to the Ebola virus disease outbreak, and 1 (2%) referred to the Asian lineage avian influenza outbreak.

Outcomes

• During these outbreaks, insomnia was found in 34% to 36.1% of health care workers, and severe anxiety symptoms in 45%.
• The prevalence of PTSD-like symptoms among health care workers during the outbreaks was 11% to 73.4%. Studies of the COVID-19 pandemic reported the highest prevalence of PTSD-like symptoms (71.5% to 73%). After 1 to 3 years following an outbreak, 10% to 40% of health care workers still had significant PTSD-like symptoms.
• Anxiety was reported in 45% of health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• A sub-analysis revealed a positive association between anxiety, PTSD, and stress symptoms and being female gender, being a nurse, and working on high-risk units.
• Perceived organizational support and confidence in protective measures were negatively associated with psychological symptoms.

Conclusions/limitations

Lessons from previous outbreaks and early data from the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that health care workers experience higher levels of psychological symptoms during outbreaks. Findings of this study suggest that organizational support and confidence in protective measures can mitigate this effect. To help preserve the well-being of health care workers, adequate training should be provided, appropriate personal protective equipment should be readily available, and support services should be well established.

8. Varatharaj A, Thomas N, Ellul MA, et al. Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 in 153 patients: a UK-wide surveillance study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(10):875-882.

Varatharaj et al¹² conducted a surveillance study in patients in the United Kingdom to understand the breadth of neurologic complications of COVID-19.

Continue to: Study design

 

 

Study design

• Researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence of psychiatric and neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 across multiple centers in United Kingdom. Data were collected through the anonymous online reporting portals of several major neurology and psychiatric associations. Retrospective reporting was allowed.
• Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as:

Confirmed COVID-19 (114 cases) if polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of respiratory samples (eg, nasal or throat swab) or CSF was positive for viral RNA or if serology was positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) or immunoglobulin G (IgG).

Probable COVID-19 (6 cases) if a chest radiograph or chest CT was consistent with COVID-19 but PCR and serology were negative or not performed.

Possible COVID-19 (5 cases) if the disease was suspected on clinical grounds by the notifying clinician, but PCR, serology, and chest imaging were negative or not performed.

Outcomes

• Sixty-two percent of patients presented with cerebrovascular events (intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, vasculitis, or other). Thirty-one percent of patients presented with altered mental status (AMS), and 5% had peripheral neurologic disorders.
• Of those with AMS, 18% (7 patients) had encephalitis, 23% (9 patients) had unspecified encephalopathy, and 59% (23 patients) had a psychiatric diagnosis as classified by the notifying psychiatrist or neuropsychiatrist. Ten patients (43%) of the 23 patients with neuropsychiatric disorders had new-onset psychosis, while only 2 patients had an exacerbation of a preexisting mental illness.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

 

 

Conclusions/limitations

This study had an over-representation of older adults. There was no control group for comparison, and the definition of confirmed COVID-19 included a positive IgM or IgG without a positive PCR or chest imaging. Although all psychiatric conditions reported were confirmed by a psychiatrist or neuropsychiatrist, there were no pre-defined criteria used for reported diagnoses.

Bottom Line

Evidence from studies of previous outbreaks and early data from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggest that during outbreaks, health care workers experience higher levels of psychological symptoms than the general population. There has been an increased prevalence of anxiety, stress, poor sleep quality, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and depression among the general population during the pandemic. COVID-19 can also impact the CNS directly and result in delirium, cerebrovascular events, encephalitis, unspecified encephalopathy, altered mental status, or peripheral neurologic disorders. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are likely to have increased symptoms and should be monitored for breakthrough symptoms and acute exacerbations.

Related Resources

• Ryznar E. Evaluating patients’ decision-making capacity during COVID-19. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):34-40.
• Freudenreich O, Kontos N, Querques J. COVID-19 and patients with serious mental illness. 2020;19(9):24-27,33-39.
• Esterwood E, Saeed SA. Past epidemics, natural disasters, COVID19, and mental health: learning from history as we deal with the present and prepare for the future [published online August 16, 2020]. Psychiatr Q. 2020:1-13. doi: 10.1007/s11126-020-09808-4.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus that is causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was first reported in late 2019.¹ As of mid-October 2020, >39 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 had been reported worldwide, and the United States was the most affected country with >8 million confirmed cases.² Although the reported symptoms of COVID-19 are primarily respiratory with acute respiratory distress syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 has also been shown to affect other organs, including the brain, and there are emerging reports of neurologic symptoms due to COVID-19.³

Psychological endurance will be a challenge that many individuals will continue to face during and after the pandemic. Physical and social isolation, the disruption of daily routines, financial stress, food insecurity, and numerous other potential triggers for stress response have all been intensified due to this pandemic, creating a situation in which many individuals’ mental well-being and stability is likely to be threatened. The uncertain environment is likely to increase the frequency and/or severity of mental health problems worldwide. Psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety and depression have been reported among patients with SARS-CoV-1 during the previous severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic.⁴

In this article, we summarize 8 recent studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses to provide an overview of the psychiatric consequences of COVID-19. These studies are summarized in the Table.^5-12 Clearly, the studies reviewed here are preliminary evidence, and our understanding of COVID-19’s effects on mental health, particularly its long-term sequelae, is certain to evolve with future research. However, these 8 studies describe how COVID-19 is currently affecting mental health among health care workers, patients, and the general public.

1. Vindegaard N, Benros ME. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: systematic review of the current evidence. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;89:531-542. 

Vindegaard and Benros⁵ conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the impact of COVID-19–related psychiatric complications and COVID-19’s effect on the mental health of patients infected with COVID-19, as well as non-infected individuals.

Study design

• This systematic review included 43 studies that measured psychiatric disorders or symptoms in patients with COVID-19 and in a non-infected group.
• The non-infected group consisted of psychiatric patients, health care workers, and the general population.
• The review excluded studies with participants who were children, adolescents, or older adults, or had substance abuse or somatic disorders.

Outcomes

• Only 2 studies included patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Of the remaining 41 studies, 2 studies examined the indirect effects of the pandemic on psychiatric patients, 20 studies examined health care workers, and 19 studies examined the general population. Eighteen of the studies were case-control studies and 25 had no control group

Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. One case-control study showed an increased prevalence of depression in patients with COVID-19 who had recently recovered (29.2%) compared with participants who were in quarantine (9.8%). The other study showed posttraumatic stress symptoms in 96% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were stable.

Continue to: Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders

Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Two studies found increased symptoms of psychiatric disorders.

Health care workers. Depression (6 studies) and anxiety symptoms (8 studies) were increased among health care workers compared with the general public or administrative staff. However, 2 studies found no difference in these symptoms among health care workers compared with the general public. Poor sleep quality and more obsessive-compulsive symptoms were reported in health care workers compared with the general public.

General public. Compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic, lower psychological well-being and increased rates of depression and anxiety were noted among the general public. Higher rates of anxiety and depression were also found in parents of children who were hospitalized during the pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. One study found no difference between being in quarantine or not.

• Current or prior medical illness was associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression. One study found higher social media exposure was associated with increased anxiety and depression. Female health care workers had higher rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Conclusions/limitations

This systematic review included 39 studies from Asia and 4 from Europe, but none from other continents, which may affect the external validity of the results. Most of the studies included were not case-controlled, which limits the ability to comment on association. Because there is little research on this topic, only 2 of the studies focused on psychiatric symptoms in patients with COVID-19. In most studies, the reporting of psychiatric dis­orders was vague and only a few studies used assessment tools, such as the General Anxiety Disorder-7 or the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, for reporting depression and anxiety.

2. Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, et al. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;88:901-907.

Pappa et al⁶ examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health care workers, with specific focus on the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia.

Continue to: Study design

 

 

Study design

• Researchers searched for studies on PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar. A random effect meta-analysis was used on the included 13 cross-sectional studies with a total of 33,062 participants. Twelve of the included studies were conducted in China and 1 in Singapore.
• Evaluation of the risk of bias of included studies was assessed using a modified form of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), with a score >3 considered as low risk of bias.

Outcomes

• Results were categorized by gender, rating scales, severity of depression, and professional groups for subgroup analysis.
• The primary outcomes were prevalence (p), confidence intervals (CI), and percentage prevalence (p × 100%). Studies with a low risk of bias were sub-analyzed again (n = 9).
• Anxiety was evaluated in 12 studies, depression in 10 studies, and insomnia in 5 studies (all 5 studies had a low risk of bias).
• There was a pooled prevalence of 23.2% for anxiety (29% female, 20.9% male), 22.8% for depression (26.87% female, 20.3% male), and 38.9% for insomnia. Female participants showed higher rates of anxiety and depression, while no subgroup analysis was performed for insomnia.
• The subgroup analysis of pooled data after excluding each study showed that no single study had >2% effect on the pooled analysis.
• The subgroup analysis by gender, professional group, and severity suggested that there was an increased prevalence of anxiety and depression in female health care workers, which was consistent with the increased prevalence in the general population.

Conclusions/limitations

There was a questionable effect of between-study heterogeneity. Different studies used different rating scales and different cutoff points on the same scales, which might make the results of pooled analysis unreliable, or might be assumed to increase the confidence. Despite the use of different scales and cutoff points, there was still a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia. All studies were conducted in a single geographical region (12 in China and 1 in Singapore). None of the included studies had a control group, either from the general population or compared with pre-COVID-19 rates of depression, anxiety, and insomnia in health care workers.

3. Loades ME, Chatburn E, Higson-Sweeney N, et al. Rapid systematic review: the impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19 [published online June 3, 2020]. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;S0890-8567(20)30337-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.05.009.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to long periods of isolation/quarantine, social distancing, and school closures, all which have resulted in significant upheaval of the lives of children and adolescents. Loades et al⁷ explored the impact of loneliness and disease-containment measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review of 63 studies examining the impact of loneliness or disease-containment measures on healthy children and adolescents. located through a search of Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Sixty-one studies were observational, and 2 were interventional.
• The search yielded studies published between 1946 and March 29, 2020.
• The quality of studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool.

Continue to: Outcomes

 

 

Outcomes

• Results by mental health symptom or disorder were categorized as follows:

Depression. Forty-five studies examined depressive symptoms and loneliness; only 6 studies included children age <10. Most reported a moderate to large correlation (0.12 ≤ r ≤ 0.81), and most of them included a measure of depressive symptoms. The association was stronger in older and female participants. Loneliness was associated with depression in 12 longitudinal studies that followed participants for 1 to 3 years. However, 3 studies (2 in children and 1 in adolescents) found no association between loneliness and depression at follow-up.

Anxiety. Twenty-three studies examined symptoms of anxiety and found a small to moderate correlation between loneliness/social isolation and anxiety (0.18 ≤ r ≤ 0.54), with duration of loneliness being more strongly associated with anxiety than intensity of loneliness. However, social anxiety or generalized anxiety were associated more with loneliness ([0.33 ≤ r ≤ 0.72] and [r = 0.37, 0.40], respectively). Three longitudinal studies found associations between loneliness and subsequent anxiety, and 1 study did not find an association between loneliness at age 5 and increased anxiety at age 12.

Mental health and well-being. Two studies found negative associations between social isolation/loneliness and well-being and mental health.

Conclusions/limitations

There is decent evidence of a strong association between loneliness/social isolation in childhood/adolescence and the development of depression, with some suggestion of increased rates in females. However, there was a small to moderate association with anxiety with increased rates in males. The length of social isolation was a strong predictor of future mental illness. Children who experienced enforced quarantine were 5 times more likely to require mental health services for posttraumatic stress symptoms.

Continue to: The compiled evidence presented in this study...

The compiled evidence presented in this study looked at previous similar scenarios of enforced social isolations; however, it cannot necessarily predict the effect of COVID-19–associated social distancing measures. Most of the studies included were cross-sectional studies and did not control for confounders. Social isolation in childhood or adolescence may be associated with developing mental health problems later in life and should be considered when implementing school closures and switching to online classes. Loades et al⁷ suggested that the increased rate of electronic communication and use of social media in children and adolescents may mitigate this predicted effect of social isolation.

4. Rogers JP, Chesney E, Oliver D, et al. Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(7):611-627.

To identify possible psychiatric and neuro­psychiatric implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, Rogers et al⁸ examined 2 previous coronavirus epidemics, SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis and systematic review of 65 studies and 7 preprints from 10 countries, including approximately 3,559 case studies of psychiatric and neuropsychiatric symptoms in participants infected with the 3 major coronavirus-induced illnesses (SARS, MERS, and COVID-19).
• Pure neurologic complications and indirect effects of the epidemics were excluded.
• The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines.
• The quality of the studies was assessed using the NOS.

Outcomes

• Outcomes measured were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition), or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment.
• Results were stratified as acute or post-illness:

Acute illness. Delirium was the most frequently reported symptom in all 3 coronavirus infections. Depression, anxiety, or insomnia were also reported in MERS and SARS infections. Mania was described in SARS, but it was almost entirely present in cases treated with high-dose corticosteroids, which are not used routinely for COVID-19.

Continue to: Post-illness

Post-illness. There was increased incidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics (SARS and MERS), but there was no control group for comparison. There was not enough data available for COVID-19.

Conclusions/limitations

Three studies were deemed to be of high quality, 32 were low quality, and 30 were moderate quality. Despite the high incidence of psychiatric symptoms in previous coronavirus infections, it was difficult to draw conclusions due to a lack of adequate control groups and predominantly low-quality studies. The difference in treatment strategies, such as the use of high-dose corticosteroids for MERS and SARS, but not for COVID-19, made it difficult to accurately predict a response for COVID-19 based on previous epidemics.

5. Shiozawa P, Uchida RR. An updated systematic review on the coronavirus pandemic: lessons for psychiatry. Braz J Psychiatry. 2020;42(3):330-331.

Schiozawa et al⁹ conducted a systematic review of articles to identify psychiatric issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review of 10 articles (7 articles from China, 1 from the United States, 1 from Japan, and 1 from Korea) that described strategies for coping with the COVID-19 pandemic and/or provided a descriptive analysis of the clinical scenario, with an emphasis on psychiatric comorbidities.
• The study used PRISMA guidelines to summarize the findings of those 10 studies. There were no pre-set outcomes or inclusion criteria.

Outcomes

• The compiled results of the 10 studies showed high rates of new-onset insomnia, anxiety, and relapse of underlying conditions such as depression.
• One study found increased hospital visits and misinterpretations of any symptom in patients with health anxiety (health anxiety was not defined).
• One study found some benefit from multidisciplinary psychological care and online counseling for both patients and health care workers.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations

Because each of the 10 studies examined extremely different outcomes, researchers were unable to compile data from all studies to draw a conclusion.

6. Salari N, Hosseinian-Far A, Jalali R, et al. Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Health. 2020;16(1):57.

Salari et al¹⁰ examined the prevalence of stress, anxiety, and depression in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 observational studies examining the prevalence of anxiety and stress in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The STROBE checklist was used to assess the quality of studies.
• Only studies judged as medium to high quality were included in the analysis.

Outcomes

• The prevalence of stress was 29.6% (5 studies, sample size 9,074 individuals).
• The prevalence of anxiety was 31.9% (17 studies, sample size 63,439 individuals).
• The prevalence of depression was 33.7% (14 studies, sample size of 44,531 individuals).
• A sub-analysis of rates by continent revealed that Asia had highest prevalence of anxiety and depression (32.9% and 35.3%, respectively). Europe had the highest rates of stress (31.9%).

Conclusions/limitations

There is an increased prevalence of anxiety, stress, and depression in the general population amid the COVID-19 pandemic. None of the included studies compared rates to before the pandemic. Most studies used online surveys, which increased the chance of sample bias. Most studies originated from China and Iran, which had the highest rates of infection when this review was conducted.

Continue to: #7

 

 

7. Preti E, Di Mattei V, Perego G, et al. The psychological impact of epidemic and pandemic outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review of the evidence. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020;22(8):43.

Preti et al¹¹ performed a review of the literature to determine the impact of epidemic/pandemic outbreaks on health care workers’ mental health.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a rapid systematic review of 44 studies examining the psychological impact of epidemic/pandemic outbreaks on health care workers.
• Of the 44 studies, 27 (62%) referred to the SARS outbreak, 5 (11%) referred to the MERS outbreak, 5 (11%) referred to the COVID-19 outbreak, 3 (7%) referred to the influenza A virus subtype H1N1 outbreak, 3 (7%) referred to the Ebola virus disease outbreak, and 1 (2%) referred to the Asian lineage avian influenza outbreak.

Outcomes

• During these outbreaks, insomnia was found in 34% to 36.1% of health care workers, and severe anxiety symptoms in 45%.
• The prevalence of PTSD-like symptoms among health care workers during the outbreaks was 11% to 73.4%. Studies of the COVID-19 pandemic reported the highest prevalence of PTSD-like symptoms (71.5% to 73%). After 1 to 3 years following an outbreak, 10% to 40% of health care workers still had significant PTSD-like symptoms.
• Anxiety was reported in 45% of health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• A sub-analysis revealed a positive association between anxiety, PTSD, and stress symptoms and being female gender, being a nurse, and working on high-risk units.
• Perceived organizational support and confidence in protective measures were negatively associated with psychological symptoms.

Conclusions/limitations

Lessons from previous outbreaks and early data from the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that health care workers experience higher levels of psychological symptoms during outbreaks. Findings of this study suggest that organizational support and confidence in protective measures can mitigate this effect. To help preserve the well-being of health care workers, adequate training should be provided, appropriate personal protective equipment should be readily available, and support services should be well established.

8. Varatharaj A, Thomas N, Ellul MA, et al. Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 in 153 patients: a UK-wide surveillance study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(10):875-882.

Varatharaj et al¹² conducted a surveillance study in patients in the United Kingdom to understand the breadth of neurologic complications of COVID-19.

Continue to: Study design

 

 

Study design

• Researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence of psychiatric and neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 across multiple centers in United Kingdom. Data were collected through the anonymous online reporting portals of several major neurology and psychiatric associations. Retrospective reporting was allowed.
• Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as:

Confirmed COVID-19 (114 cases) if polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of respiratory samples (eg, nasal or throat swab) or CSF was positive for viral RNA or if serology was positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) or immunoglobulin G (IgG).

Probable COVID-19 (6 cases) if a chest radiograph or chest CT was consistent with COVID-19 but PCR and serology were negative or not performed.

Possible COVID-19 (5 cases) if the disease was suspected on clinical grounds by the notifying clinician, but PCR, serology, and chest imaging were negative or not performed.

Outcomes

• Sixty-two percent of patients presented with cerebrovascular events (intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, vasculitis, or other). Thirty-one percent of patients presented with altered mental status (AMS), and 5% had peripheral neurologic disorders.
• Of those with AMS, 18% (7 patients) had encephalitis, 23% (9 patients) had unspecified encephalopathy, and 59% (23 patients) had a psychiatric diagnosis as classified by the notifying psychiatrist or neuropsychiatrist. Ten patients (43%) of the 23 patients with neuropsychiatric disorders had new-onset psychosis, while only 2 patients had an exacerbation of a preexisting mental illness.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

 

 

Conclusions/limitations

This study had an over-representation of older adults. There was no control group for comparison, and the definition of confirmed COVID-19 included a positive IgM or IgG without a positive PCR or chest imaging. Although all psychiatric conditions reported were confirmed by a psychiatrist or neuropsychiatrist, there were no pre-defined criteria used for reported diagnoses.

Bottom Line

Evidence from studies of previous outbreaks and early data from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggest that during outbreaks, health care workers experience higher levels of psychological symptoms than the general population. There has been an increased prevalence of anxiety, stress, poor sleep quality, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and depression among the general population during the pandemic. COVID-19 can also impact the CNS directly and result in delirium, cerebrovascular events, encephalitis, unspecified encephalopathy, altered mental status, or peripheral neurologic disorders. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are likely to have increased symptoms and should be monitored for breakthrough symptoms and acute exacerbations.

Related Resources

• Ryznar E. Evaluating patients’ decision-making capacity during COVID-19. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):34-40.
• Freudenreich O, Kontos N, Querques J. COVID-19 and patients with serious mental illness. 2020;19(9):24-27,33-39.
• Esterwood E, Saeed SA. Past epidemics, natural disasters, COVID19, and mental health: learning from history as we deal with the present and prepare for the future [published online August 16, 2020]. Psychiatr Q. 2020:1-13. doi: 10.1007/s11126-020-09808-4.

Mr. T, age 26, presents to the psychiatric emergency department with acutely worsening symptoms of schizophrenia. The treating team decides to admit him to the inpatient psychiatry unit. The patient agrees to admission bloodwork, but adamantly refuses a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) nasal swab, stating that he does not consent to “having COVID-19 injected into his nose.” His nurse pages the psychiatry resident on call, asking her for seclusion orders to be placed for the patient in order to quarantine him.

This case illustrates a quandary that has arisen during the COVID-19 era. Traditionally, the use of seclusion in inpatient psychiatry wards has been restricted to the management of violent or self-destructive behavior. Most guidelines advise that seclusion should be used only to ensure the immediate physical safety of a patient, staff members, or other patients.¹ Using seclusion for other purposes, such as to quarantine patients suspected of having an infectious disease, raises ethical questions.

What is seclusion?

To best understand the questions that arise from the above scenario, a thorough understanding of the terminology used is needed. Although the terms “isolation,” “quarantine,” and “seclusion” are often used interchangeably, each has a distinct definition and unique history.

Isolation in a medical context refers to the practice of isolating people confirmed to have a disease from the general population. The earliest description of medical isolation dates back to the 7th century BC in the Book of Leviticus, which mentions a protocol for separating individuals infected with leprosy from those who are healthy.²

Quarantine hearkens back to the most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, the Black Death. In 1377, on the advice of the city’s chief physician, the Mediterranean seaport of Ragusa passed a law establishing an isolation period for all visitors from plague-endemic lands.² Initially a 30-day isolation period (a trentino), this was extended to 40 days (a quarantino). Distinct from isolation, quarantine is the practice of limiting movements of apparently healthy individuals who may have been exposed to a disease but do not have a confirmed diagnosis.

Seclusion, a term used most often in psychiatry, is defined as “the involuntary confinement of a patient alone in a room or area from which the patient is physically prevented from leaving.”³ The use of seclusion rooms in psychiatric facilities was originally championed by the 19th century British psychiatrist John Conolly.⁴ In The Treatment of the Insane without Mechanical Restraints, Conolly argued that a padded seclusion room was far more humane and effective in calming a violent patient than mechanical restraints. After exhausting less restrictive measures, seclusion is one of the most common means of restraining violent patients in inpatient psychiatric facilities.

Why consider seclusion?

The discussion of using seclusion as a means of quarantine has arisen recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This infectious disease was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China.⁵ Since then, it has spread rapidly across the world. As of mid-October 2020, >39 million cases across 189 countries had been reported.⁶ The primary means by which the virus is spread is through respiratory droplets released from infected individuals through coughing, sneezing, or talking.⁷ These droplets can remain airborne or fall onto surfaces that become fomites. Transmission is possible before symptoms appear in an infected individual or even from individuals who are asymptomatic.⁸

Continue to: The typical layout and requirements...

The typical layout and requirements of an inpatient psychiatric ward intensify the risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁹ Unlike most medical specialty wards, psychiatric wards are set up with a therapeutic milieu where patients have the opportunity to mingle and interact with each other and staff members. Patients are allowed to walk around the unit, spend time in group therapy, eat meals with each other, and have visitation hours. The therapeutic benefit of such a milieu, however, must be weighed against the risks that patients pose to staff members and other patients. While many facilities have restricted some of these activities to limit COVID-19 exposure, the overall risk of transmission is still elevated. Early in course of the pandemic, the virus spread to an inpatient psychiatric ward in South Korea. Although health officials put the ward on lockdown, given the heightened risk of transmission, the virus quickly spread from patient to patient. Out of 103 inpatients, 101 contracted COVID-19.¹⁰

To mitigate this risk, many inpatient psychiatric facilities have mandated that all newly admitted patients be tested for COVID-19. By obtaining COVID-19 testing, facilities are better able to risk stratify their patient population and appropriately protect all patients. A dilemma arises, however, when a patient refuses to consent to COVID-19 testing. In such cases, the infectious risk of the patient remains unknown. Given the potentially disastrous consequences of an unchecked COVID-19 infection running rampant in an inpatient ward, some facilities have elected to use seclusion as a means of quarantining the patient.

Is seclusion justifiable?

There are legitimate objections to using seclusion as a means of quarantine. Most guidelines state that the only time seclusion is ethical is when it is used to prevent immediate physical danger, either to the patient or others.¹¹ Involuntary confinement entails considerable restriction of a patient’s rights and thus should be used only after all other options have been exhausted. People opposed to the use of seclusion point out that outside of the hospital, people are not forcibly restrained in order to enforce social distancing,¹² so by extension, those who are inside the hospital should not be forced to seclude.

Seclusion also comes with potentially harmful effects. For the 14 days that a patient is in quarantine, they are cut off from most social contact, which is the opposite of the intended purpose of the therapeutic milieu in inpatient psychiatric wards. Several quantitative studies have shown that individuals who are quarantined tend to report a high prevalence of symptoms of psychological distress, including low mood, irritability, depression, stress, anger, and posttraumatic stress disorder.¹³

Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that a negative test does not definitively rule out a COVID-19 infection. Nasal swabs for COVID-19 have a false-negative rate of 27%.¹⁴ In other words, patients on an inpatient psychiatry ward who are free to walk around the unit and interact with others are only probably COVID-19 free, not definitively. This fact throws into question the original justification for seclusion—to protect other patients from COVID-19.

Continue to: Support for using seclusion as quarantine

 

 

Support for using seclusion as quarantine

Despite these objections, there are clear arguments in favor of using seclusion as a means of quarantine. First, the danger posed by an unidentified COVID-19 infection to the inpatient psychiatric population is not small. As of mid-October 2020, >217,000 Americans had died of COVID-19.⁶ Psychiatric patients, especially those who are acutely decompensated and hospitalized, have a heightened risk.¹⁵ Those with underlying medical issues are more likely to be seriously affected by an infection. Patients with serious mental illness have higher rates of medical comorbidities¹⁶ and premature death.¹⁷ The risk of a patient contracting and then dying from COVID-19 is elevated in an inpatient psychiatric ward. Even if a test is not 100% sensitive or specific, the balance of probability it provides is sufficient to make an informed decision about transmission risk.

In choosing to seclude a patient who refuses COVID-19 testing, the treating team must weigh one person’s autonomy against the safety of every other individual on the ward. From a purely utilitarian perspective, the lives of the many outweigh the discomfort of one. Addressing this balance, the American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Ethics states “Although physicians’ primary ethical obligation is to their individual patients, they also have a long-recognized public health responsibility. In the context of infectious disease, this may include the use of quarantine and isolation to reduce the transmission of disease and protect the health of the public. In such situations, physicians have a further responsibility to protect their own health to ensure that they remain able to provide care. These responsibilities potentially conflict with patients’ rights of self-determination and with physicians’ duty to advocate for the best interests of individual patients and to provide care in emergencies.”¹⁸

The AMA Code of Ethics further mentions that physicians should “support mandatory quarantine and isolation when a patient fails to adhere voluntarily.” Medical evidence supports both quarantine¹⁹ and enacting isolation measures for COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.²⁰ Table 1^21-24 summarizes the recommendations of major medical societies regarding isolation on hospital units.

Further, public health officials and law enforcement officials do in fact have the authority²⁵ to enforce quarantine and restrict a citizen’s movement outside a hospital setting. Recent cases have illustrated how this has been enforced, particularly with the use of electronic monitoring units and even criminal sanctions.^26,27

It is also important to consider that when used as quarantine, seclusion is not an indefinite action. Current recommendations suggest the longest period of time a patient would need to be in seclusion is 14 days. A patient could potentially reduce this period by agreeing to COVID-19 testing and obtaining a negative test result.

Continue to: Enacting inpatient quarantine

 

 

Enacting inpatient quarantine

In Mr. T’s case, the resident physician was asked to make a decision regarding seclusion on the spot. Prudent facilities will set policies and educate clinicians before they need to face this conundrum. The following practical considerations may guide implementation of seclusion as a measure of quarantine on an inpatient psychiatric unit:

• given the risk of asymptomatic carriers, all admitted patients should be tested for COVID-19
• patients who refuse a test should be evaluated by the psychiatrist on duty to determine if the patient has the capacity to make this decision
• if a patient demonstrates capacity to refuse and continues to refuse testing, seclusion orders should then be placed
• the facility should create a protocol to ensure consistent application of seclusion orders.

So that they can make an informed decision, patients should be educated about the risks of not undergoing testing. It is important to correctly frame a seclusion decision to the patient. Explain that seclusion is not a punitive measure, but rather a means of respecting the patient’s right to refuse testing while ensuring other patients’ right to be protected from COVID-19 transmission.

It is crucial to not allow psychiatric care to be diminished because a patient is isolated due to COVID-19. Psychiatrists have legal duties to provide care when a patient is admitted to their unit,^28-30 and state laws generally outline patients’ rights while they are hospitalized.³¹ The use of technology can ensure these duties are fulfilled. Patient rounds and group treatment can be conducted through telehealth.^10,32 When in-person interaction is required, caretakers should don proper personal protective equipment and interact with the patient as often as they would if the patient were not in seclusion. Table 2^33-36 summarizes further ethical considerations when implementing quarantine measures on a psychiatry unit.

The contemporary inpatient unit

The ideal design to optimize care and safety is to create designated COVID-19 psychiatric units. Indeed, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration recommends segregating floors based on infection status where possible.³⁷ This minimizes the risk of transmission to other patients while maintaining the same standards of psychiatric treatment, including milieu and group therapy (which may also require adjustments). Such a unit already has precedent.³⁸ Although designated COVID-19 psychiatric units present clinical and administrative hurdles,³⁹ they may become more commonplace as the number of COVID-19–positive inpatients continues to rise.

Bottom Line

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created challenges for inpatient psychiatric facilities. Although seclusion is a serious decision and should not be undertaken lightly, there are clear ethical and practical justifications for using it as a means of quarantine for patients who are COVID-19–positive or refuse testing.

Related Resources

• Askew L, Fisher P, Beazley P. What are adult psychiatric inpatients’ experience of seclusion: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019; 26(7-8):274-285.
• Komrad MS. Medical ethics in the time of COVID-19. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(7):29-32,46.

Mr. T, age 26, presents to the psychiatric emergency department with acutely worsening symptoms of schizophrenia. The treating team decides to admit him to the inpatient psychiatry unit. The patient agrees to admission bloodwork, but adamantly refuses a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) nasal swab, stating that he does not consent to “having COVID-19 injected into his nose.” His nurse pages the psychiatry resident on call, asking her for seclusion orders to be placed for the patient in order to quarantine him.

This case illustrates a quandary that has arisen during the COVID-19 era. Traditionally, the use of seclusion in inpatient psychiatry wards has been restricted to the management of violent or self-destructive behavior. Most guidelines advise that seclusion should be used only to ensure the immediate physical safety of a patient, staff members, or other patients.¹ Using seclusion for other purposes, such as to quarantine patients suspected of having an infectious disease, raises ethical questions.

What is seclusion?

To best understand the questions that arise from the above scenario, a thorough understanding of the terminology used is needed. Although the terms “isolation,” “quarantine,” and “seclusion” are often used interchangeably, each has a distinct definition and unique history.

Isolation in a medical context refers to the practice of isolating people confirmed to have a disease from the general population. The earliest description of medical isolation dates back to the 7th century BC in the Book of Leviticus, which mentions a protocol for separating individuals infected with leprosy from those who are healthy.²

Quarantine hearkens back to the most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, the Black Death. In 1377, on the advice of the city’s chief physician, the Mediterranean seaport of Ragusa passed a law establishing an isolation period for all visitors from plague-endemic lands.² Initially a 30-day isolation period (a trentino), this was extended to 40 days (a quarantino). Distinct from isolation, quarantine is the practice of limiting movements of apparently healthy individuals who may have been exposed to a disease but do not have a confirmed diagnosis.

Seclusion, a term used most often in psychiatry, is defined as “the involuntary confinement of a patient alone in a room or area from which the patient is physically prevented from leaving.”³ The use of seclusion rooms in psychiatric facilities was originally championed by the 19th century British psychiatrist John Conolly.⁴ In The Treatment of the Insane without Mechanical Restraints, Conolly argued that a padded seclusion room was far more humane and effective in calming a violent patient than mechanical restraints. After exhausting less restrictive measures, seclusion is one of the most common means of restraining violent patients in inpatient psychiatric facilities.

Why consider seclusion?

The discussion of using seclusion as a means of quarantine has arisen recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This infectious disease was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China.⁵ Since then, it has spread rapidly across the world. As of mid-October 2020, >39 million cases across 189 countries had been reported.⁶ The primary means by which the virus is spread is through respiratory droplets released from infected individuals through coughing, sneezing, or talking.⁷ These droplets can remain airborne or fall onto surfaces that become fomites. Transmission is possible before symptoms appear in an infected individual or even from individuals who are asymptomatic.⁸

Continue to: The typical layout and requirements...

The typical layout and requirements of an inpatient psychiatric ward intensify the risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁹ Unlike most medical specialty wards, psychiatric wards are set up with a therapeutic milieu where patients have the opportunity to mingle and interact with each other and staff members. Patients are allowed to walk around the unit, spend time in group therapy, eat meals with each other, and have visitation hours. The therapeutic benefit of such a milieu, however, must be weighed against the risks that patients pose to staff members and other patients. While many facilities have restricted some of these activities to limit COVID-19 exposure, the overall risk of transmission is still elevated. Early in course of the pandemic, the virus spread to an inpatient psychiatric ward in South Korea. Although health officials put the ward on lockdown, given the heightened risk of transmission, the virus quickly spread from patient to patient. Out of 103 inpatients, 101 contracted COVID-19.¹⁰

To mitigate this risk, many inpatient psychiatric facilities have mandated that all newly admitted patients be tested for COVID-19. By obtaining COVID-19 testing, facilities are better able to risk stratify their patient population and appropriately protect all patients. A dilemma arises, however, when a patient refuses to consent to COVID-19 testing. In such cases, the infectious risk of the patient remains unknown. Given the potentially disastrous consequences of an unchecked COVID-19 infection running rampant in an inpatient ward, some facilities have elected to use seclusion as a means of quarantining the patient.

Is seclusion justifiable?

There are legitimate objections to using seclusion as a means of quarantine. Most guidelines state that the only time seclusion is ethical is when it is used to prevent immediate physical danger, either to the patient or others.¹¹ Involuntary confinement entails considerable restriction of a patient’s rights and thus should be used only after all other options have been exhausted. People opposed to the use of seclusion point out that outside of the hospital, people are not forcibly restrained in order to enforce social distancing,¹² so by extension, those who are inside the hospital should not be forced to seclude.

Seclusion also comes with potentially harmful effects. For the 14 days that a patient is in quarantine, they are cut off from most social contact, which is the opposite of the intended purpose of the therapeutic milieu in inpatient psychiatric wards. Several quantitative studies have shown that individuals who are quarantined tend to report a high prevalence of symptoms of psychological distress, including low mood, irritability, depression, stress, anger, and posttraumatic stress disorder.¹³

Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that a negative test does not definitively rule out a COVID-19 infection. Nasal swabs for COVID-19 have a false-negative rate of 27%.¹⁴ In other words, patients on an inpatient psychiatry ward who are free to walk around the unit and interact with others are only probably COVID-19 free, not definitively. This fact throws into question the original justification for seclusion—to protect other patients from COVID-19.

Continue to: Support for using seclusion as quarantine

 

 

Support for using seclusion as quarantine

Despite these objections, there are clear arguments in favor of using seclusion as a means of quarantine. First, the danger posed by an unidentified COVID-19 infection to the inpatient psychiatric population is not small. As of mid-October 2020, >217,000 Americans had died of COVID-19.⁶ Psychiatric patients, especially those who are acutely decompensated and hospitalized, have a heightened risk.¹⁵ Those with underlying medical issues are more likely to be seriously affected by an infection. Patients with serious mental illness have higher rates of medical comorbidities¹⁶ and premature death.¹⁷ The risk of a patient contracting and then dying from COVID-19 is elevated in an inpatient psychiatric ward. Even if a test is not 100% sensitive or specific, the balance of probability it provides is sufficient to make an informed decision about transmission risk.

In choosing to seclude a patient who refuses COVID-19 testing, the treating team must weigh one person’s autonomy against the safety of every other individual on the ward. From a purely utilitarian perspective, the lives of the many outweigh the discomfort of one. Addressing this balance, the American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Ethics states “Although physicians’ primary ethical obligation is to their individual patients, they also have a long-recognized public health responsibility. In the context of infectious disease, this may include the use of quarantine and isolation to reduce the transmission of disease and protect the health of the public. In such situations, physicians have a further responsibility to protect their own health to ensure that they remain able to provide care. These responsibilities potentially conflict with patients’ rights of self-determination and with physicians’ duty to advocate for the best interests of individual patients and to provide care in emergencies.”¹⁸

The AMA Code of Ethics further mentions that physicians should “support mandatory quarantine and isolation when a patient fails to adhere voluntarily.” Medical evidence supports both quarantine¹⁹ and enacting isolation measures for COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.²⁰ Table 1^21-24 summarizes the recommendations of major medical societies regarding isolation on hospital units.

Further, public health officials and law enforcement officials do in fact have the authority²⁵ to enforce quarantine and restrict a citizen’s movement outside a hospital setting. Recent cases have illustrated how this has been enforced, particularly with the use of electronic monitoring units and even criminal sanctions.^26,27

It is also important to consider that when used as quarantine, seclusion is not an indefinite action. Current recommendations suggest the longest period of time a patient would need to be in seclusion is 14 days. A patient could potentially reduce this period by agreeing to COVID-19 testing and obtaining a negative test result.

Continue to: Enacting inpatient quarantine

 

 

Enacting inpatient quarantine

In Mr. T’s case, the resident physician was asked to make a decision regarding seclusion on the spot. Prudent facilities will set policies and educate clinicians before they need to face this conundrum. The following practical considerations may guide implementation of seclusion as a measure of quarantine on an inpatient psychiatric unit:

• given the risk of asymptomatic carriers, all admitted patients should be tested for COVID-19
• patients who refuse a test should be evaluated by the psychiatrist on duty to determine if the patient has the capacity to make this decision
• if a patient demonstrates capacity to refuse and continues to refuse testing, seclusion orders should then be placed
• the facility should create a protocol to ensure consistent application of seclusion orders.

So that they can make an informed decision, patients should be educated about the risks of not undergoing testing. It is important to correctly frame a seclusion decision to the patient. Explain that seclusion is not a punitive measure, but rather a means of respecting the patient’s right to refuse testing while ensuring other patients’ right to be protected from COVID-19 transmission.

It is crucial to not allow psychiatric care to be diminished because a patient is isolated due to COVID-19. Psychiatrists have legal duties to provide care when a patient is admitted to their unit,^28-30 and state laws generally outline patients’ rights while they are hospitalized.³¹ The use of technology can ensure these duties are fulfilled. Patient rounds and group treatment can be conducted through telehealth.^10,32 When in-person interaction is required, caretakers should don proper personal protective equipment and interact with the patient as often as they would if the patient were not in seclusion. Table 2^33-36 summarizes further ethical considerations when implementing quarantine measures on a psychiatry unit.

The contemporary inpatient unit

The ideal design to optimize care and safety is to create designated COVID-19 psychiatric units. Indeed, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration recommends segregating floors based on infection status where possible.³⁷ This minimizes the risk of transmission to other patients while maintaining the same standards of psychiatric treatment, including milieu and group therapy (which may also require adjustments). Such a unit already has precedent.³⁸ Although designated COVID-19 psychiatric units present clinical and administrative hurdles,³⁹ they may become more commonplace as the number of COVID-19–positive inpatients continues to rise.

Bottom Line

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created challenges for inpatient psychiatric facilities. Although seclusion is a serious decision and should not be undertaken lightly, there are clear ethical and practical justifications for using it as a means of quarantine for patients who are COVID-19–positive or refuse testing.

Related Resources

• Askew L, Fisher P, Beazley P. What are adult psychiatric inpatients’ experience of seclusion: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019; 26(7-8):274-285.
• Komrad MS. Medical ethics in the time of COVID-19. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(7):29-32,46.

Mr. T, age 26, presents to the psychiatric emergency department with acutely worsening symptoms of schizophrenia. The treating team decides to admit him to the inpatient psychiatry unit. The patient agrees to admission bloodwork, but adamantly refuses a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) nasal swab, stating that he does not consent to “having COVID-19 injected into his nose.” His nurse pages the psychiatry resident on call, asking her for seclusion orders to be placed for the patient in order to quarantine him.

This case illustrates a quandary that has arisen during the COVID-19 era. Traditionally, the use of seclusion in inpatient psychiatry wards has been restricted to the management of violent or self-destructive behavior. Most guidelines advise that seclusion should be used only to ensure the immediate physical safety of a patient, staff members, or other patients.¹ Using seclusion for other purposes, such as to quarantine patients suspected of having an infectious disease, raises ethical questions.

What is seclusion?

To best understand the questions that arise from the above scenario, a thorough understanding of the terminology used is needed. Although the terms “isolation,” “quarantine,” and “seclusion” are often used interchangeably, each has a distinct definition and unique history.

Isolation in a medical context refers to the practice of isolating people confirmed to have a disease from the general population. The earliest description of medical isolation dates back to the 7th century BC in the Book of Leviticus, which mentions a protocol for separating individuals infected with leprosy from those who are healthy.²

Quarantine hearkens back to the most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, the Black Death. In 1377, on the advice of the city’s chief physician, the Mediterranean seaport of Ragusa passed a law establishing an isolation period for all visitors from plague-endemic lands.² Initially a 30-day isolation period (a trentino), this was extended to 40 days (a quarantino). Distinct from isolation, quarantine is the practice of limiting movements of apparently healthy individuals who may have been exposed to a disease but do not have a confirmed diagnosis.

Seclusion, a term used most often in psychiatry, is defined as “the involuntary confinement of a patient alone in a room or area from which the patient is physically prevented from leaving.”³ The use of seclusion rooms in psychiatric facilities was originally championed by the 19th century British psychiatrist John Conolly.⁴ In The Treatment of the Insane without Mechanical Restraints, Conolly argued that a padded seclusion room was far more humane and effective in calming a violent patient than mechanical restraints. After exhausting less restrictive measures, seclusion is one of the most common means of restraining violent patients in inpatient psychiatric facilities.

Why consider seclusion?

The discussion of using seclusion as a means of quarantine has arisen recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This infectious disease was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China.⁵ Since then, it has spread rapidly across the world. As of mid-October 2020, >39 million cases across 189 countries had been reported.⁶ The primary means by which the virus is spread is through respiratory droplets released from infected individuals through coughing, sneezing, or talking.⁷ These droplets can remain airborne or fall onto surfaces that become fomites. Transmission is possible before symptoms appear in an infected individual or even from individuals who are asymptomatic.⁸

Continue to: The typical layout and requirements...

The typical layout and requirements of an inpatient psychiatric ward intensify the risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁹ Unlike most medical specialty wards, psychiatric wards are set up with a therapeutic milieu where patients have the opportunity to mingle and interact with each other and staff members. Patients are allowed to walk around the unit, spend time in group therapy, eat meals with each other, and have visitation hours. The therapeutic benefit of such a milieu, however, must be weighed against the risks that patients pose to staff members and other patients. While many facilities have restricted some of these activities to limit COVID-19 exposure, the overall risk of transmission is still elevated. Early in course of the pandemic, the virus spread to an inpatient psychiatric ward in South Korea. Although health officials put the ward on lockdown, given the heightened risk of transmission, the virus quickly spread from patient to patient. Out of 103 inpatients, 101 contracted COVID-19.¹⁰

To mitigate this risk, many inpatient psychiatric facilities have mandated that all newly admitted patients be tested for COVID-19. By obtaining COVID-19 testing, facilities are better able to risk stratify their patient population and appropriately protect all patients. A dilemma arises, however, when a patient refuses to consent to COVID-19 testing. In such cases, the infectious risk of the patient remains unknown. Given the potentially disastrous consequences of an unchecked COVID-19 infection running rampant in an inpatient ward, some facilities have elected to use seclusion as a means of quarantining the patient.

Is seclusion justifiable?

There are legitimate objections to using seclusion as a means of quarantine. Most guidelines state that the only time seclusion is ethical is when it is used to prevent immediate physical danger, either to the patient or others.¹¹ Involuntary confinement entails considerable restriction of a patient’s rights and thus should be used only after all other options have been exhausted. People opposed to the use of seclusion point out that outside of the hospital, people are not forcibly restrained in order to enforce social distancing,¹² so by extension, those who are inside the hospital should not be forced to seclude.

Seclusion also comes with potentially harmful effects. For the 14 days that a patient is in quarantine, they are cut off from most social contact, which is the opposite of the intended purpose of the therapeutic milieu in inpatient psychiatric wards. Several quantitative studies have shown that individuals who are quarantined tend to report a high prevalence of symptoms of psychological distress, including low mood, irritability, depression, stress, anger, and posttraumatic stress disorder.¹³

Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that a negative test does not definitively rule out a COVID-19 infection. Nasal swabs for COVID-19 have a false-negative rate of 27%.¹⁴ In other words, patients on an inpatient psychiatry ward who are free to walk around the unit and interact with others are only probably COVID-19 free, not definitively. This fact throws into question the original justification for seclusion—to protect other patients from COVID-19.

Continue to: Support for using seclusion as quarantine

 

 

Support for using seclusion as quarantine

Despite these objections, there are clear arguments in favor of using seclusion as a means of quarantine. First, the danger posed by an unidentified COVID-19 infection to the inpatient psychiatric population is not small. As of mid-October 2020, >217,000 Americans had died of COVID-19.⁶ Psychiatric patients, especially those who are acutely decompensated and hospitalized, have a heightened risk.¹⁵ Those with underlying medical issues are more likely to be seriously affected by an infection. Patients with serious mental illness have higher rates of medical comorbidities¹⁶ and premature death.¹⁷ The risk of a patient contracting and then dying from COVID-19 is elevated in an inpatient psychiatric ward. Even if a test is not 100% sensitive or specific, the balance of probability it provides is sufficient to make an informed decision about transmission risk.

In choosing to seclude a patient who refuses COVID-19 testing, the treating team must weigh one person’s autonomy against the safety of every other individual on the ward. From a purely utilitarian perspective, the lives of the many outweigh the discomfort of one. Addressing this balance, the American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Ethics states “Although physicians’ primary ethical obligation is to their individual patients, they also have a long-recognized public health responsibility. In the context of infectious disease, this may include the use of quarantine and isolation to reduce the transmission of disease and protect the health of the public. In such situations, physicians have a further responsibility to protect their own health to ensure that they remain able to provide care. These responsibilities potentially conflict with patients’ rights of self-determination and with physicians’ duty to advocate for the best interests of individual patients and to provide care in emergencies.”¹⁸

The AMA Code of Ethics further mentions that physicians should “support mandatory quarantine and isolation when a patient fails to adhere voluntarily.” Medical evidence supports both quarantine¹⁹ and enacting isolation measures for COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.²⁰ Table 1^21-24 summarizes the recommendations of major medical societies regarding isolation on hospital units.

Further, public health officials and law enforcement officials do in fact have the authority²⁵ to enforce quarantine and restrict a citizen’s movement outside a hospital setting. Recent cases have illustrated how this has been enforced, particularly with the use of electronic monitoring units and even criminal sanctions.^26,27

It is also important to consider that when used as quarantine, seclusion is not an indefinite action. Current recommendations suggest the longest period of time a patient would need to be in seclusion is 14 days. A patient could potentially reduce this period by agreeing to COVID-19 testing and obtaining a negative test result.

Continue to: Enacting inpatient quarantine

 

 

Enacting inpatient quarantine

In Mr. T’s case, the resident physician was asked to make a decision regarding seclusion on the spot. Prudent facilities will set policies and educate clinicians before they need to face this conundrum. The following practical considerations may guide implementation of seclusion as a measure of quarantine on an inpatient psychiatric unit:

• given the risk of asymptomatic carriers, all admitted patients should be tested for COVID-19
• patients who refuse a test should be evaluated by the psychiatrist on duty to determine if the patient has the capacity to make this decision
• if a patient demonstrates capacity to refuse and continues to refuse testing, seclusion orders should then be placed
• the facility should create a protocol to ensure consistent application of seclusion orders.

So that they can make an informed decision, patients should be educated about the risks of not undergoing testing. It is important to correctly frame a seclusion decision to the patient. Explain that seclusion is not a punitive measure, but rather a means of respecting the patient’s right to refuse testing while ensuring other patients’ right to be protected from COVID-19 transmission.

It is crucial to not allow psychiatric care to be diminished because a patient is isolated due to COVID-19. Psychiatrists have legal duties to provide care when a patient is admitted to their unit,^28-30 and state laws generally outline patients’ rights while they are hospitalized.³¹ The use of technology can ensure these duties are fulfilled. Patient rounds and group treatment can be conducted through telehealth.^10,32 When in-person interaction is required, caretakers should don proper personal protective equipment and interact with the patient as often as they would if the patient were not in seclusion. Table 2^33-36 summarizes further ethical considerations when implementing quarantine measures on a psychiatry unit.

The contemporary inpatient unit

The ideal design to optimize care and safety is to create designated COVID-19 psychiatric units. Indeed, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration recommends segregating floors based on infection status where possible.³⁷ This minimizes the risk of transmission to other patients while maintaining the same standards of psychiatric treatment, including milieu and group therapy (which may also require adjustments). Such a unit already has precedent.³⁸ Although designated COVID-19 psychiatric units present clinical and administrative hurdles,³⁹ they may become more commonplace as the number of COVID-19–positive inpatients continues to rise.

Bottom Line

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created challenges for inpatient psychiatric facilities. Although seclusion is a serious decision and should not be undertaken lightly, there are clear ethical and practical justifications for using it as a means of quarantine for patients who are COVID-19–positive or refuse testing.

Related Resources

• Askew L, Fisher P, Beazley P. What are adult psychiatric inpatients’ experience of seclusion: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019; 26(7-8):274-285.
• Komrad MS. Medical ethics in the time of COVID-19. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(7):29-32,46.

Emil: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wasn’t really on my mind until the first weekend in March, specifically Sunday, March 8, 2020. That weekend had us traveling from Chicago to Berwyn, Pennsylvania to attend the funeral of one of my older cousins. Though we were the only ones from his side at the graveside, his funeral had drawn numerous relatives, none of whom were “socially distanced.”

On our way home, I received an e-mail from a colleague in Brazil who had invited me to speak at a conference in São Paulo. He told me that several of my American colleagues had contacted him and informed him that their universities had banned travel because of COVID. “I’m coming,” I replied. “I don’t think COVID’s going to be a big deal here.” He said COVID wasn’t a “big deal” in Brazil, either. Famous last words.

The next weekend, I left early on Saturday morning to start my call duty at the hospital. After finishing rounds at one hospital and going to the next, I got a text from my wife, Anne, asking “What’s wrong with your people over there? What kind of doctors would take a 65-year-old colleague with a history of asthma, and history of an ICU stay with 10 days on a respirator with acute respiratory distress syndrome 10 years ago, and have him exposed to this lethal virus? Are they trying to kill you?”

It stopped me in my tracks. She was right. A lot had changed in a week. In that single week, it had become clear that COVID was a real threat, and I was vulnerable. I finished my call duty but made it clear to the “powers that be” I was going to stay home and isolate for the next few weeks, until we knew more. I was ahead of the curve, but not by much: within days, Chicago shut down with a “stay-at-home” order.

Anne: When the threat of COVID first became known, I said to family and friends, “If Emil gets this, it’s going to be very, very bad.” After that, we made certain to wear masks and gloves when we went out, which wasn’t often.

Emil: We stayed in for the next 3 months until we moved to Columbus, Ohio for my new position as Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUMC).

The day after arriving, I went to the emergency dental clinic because of a severe toothache. While they couldn’t save my tooth, I got something in return: COVID. The clinic took more than appropriate precautions, but I was in a very large room, not a private office, with many patients having their teeth drilled and whatever it is dentists do (actually, I do know; my father was a dentist).

Continue to: All was fine until 2 days later...

All was fine until 2 days later, when I began to feel a bit “unwell” on late Friday afternoon. I went out to do some chores the next morning, but soon returned home exhausted. The rest of the weekend was more of the same, and I was surprised at how I just couldn’t get anything done. On Monday, I felt a chill and thought I might have COVID.

The next morning, I went to OSUMC for a COVID test, but by then I already knew the result. The night before, Anne started complaining of a dry cough that would not stop.

Anne: When I realized Emil had COVID, I wrote to a friend, “If he gets bad and has to go to the hospital, or worse … he goes on a ventilator, I may need to be admitted to a psych ward!” I was still upset from the memory of sitting by Emil’s bedside when he was sick, and on a ventilator, 10 years ago, with his doctors talking with me about when, not if, he died.

Emil: My test came back within 8 hours on Tuesday. It was positive, as was the one for Anne the next day. The doctor I spoke to that evening thought I was only having a mild case and that I should just stay isolated. We immediately got a thermometer and a pulse oximeter to follow our symptoms. Anne’s oxygen saturation levels were always above 95%, but mine were lower, and by Friday, 3 days later and 1 week after my first symptoms, they were down to 92% or less. At that point, we both went to the ER at OSUMC.

Anne: We went to different places in the ER to be evaluated. As Emil was being wheeled away in the ER for his evaluation, I ran over for a kiss—with our masks on.

Continue to: As my ER evaluation...

As my ER evaluation was concluding, my doctor said, “I want someone, preferably the same person, to check in on you every day.” I replied I had a friend who is a critical care nurse. He smiled and said, “Excellent.” My friend called every day, and when she didn’t like how I sounded, on some days, she found an excuse to call again.

Emil: I barely recall my ER evaluation, except that I was to be admitted for observation and supplemental oxygen. I accepted this with aplomb, knowing I was in good hands and hoping I’d be home soon.

Anne: Because we were in the same ER, I thought I’d be able to see Emil once they decided to admit him. No. They wouldn’t even let me go to him to get his wallet for safekeeping. Instead, it was brought to me in a hazmat bag. Thus began our forced separation for the next 5 weeks.

Emil: I had to wait hours for a bed and was wheeled up late in the evening to a double room with one other patient, also with COVID, I supposed. While I had an oxygen mask on, we were only separated by a curtain. I had no idea I wouldn’t see Anne for weeks.

Anne: I returned “home” to a house I had spent less than 5 days in. We had barely moved in and it only had a bed, a couch, a TV, and a kitchen chair. I didn’t even know my neighbors to wave at, and … I was in quarantine. No one could come to me. Our eldest daughter was alone near Burlington, Vermont (where she had escaped to from New York City when it was the national epicenter for COVID back in March). Our youngest daughter was alone in Los Angeles, and our son, a newly minted First Lieutenant in the Army, was stationed in Afghanistan. “Good for him,” I thought. He could safely interact with his army buddies. It was so ironic; the one in the war zone was the only one of us who was safe from COVID.

Continue to: I reached out to family and friends...

I reached out to family and friends and asked for prayers. Emil was prayed for by all of our Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist friends. As I told him later, he was prayed for from Afghanistan to Alaska. My extended family activated a text chain so all I had to do was reply and everyone on the chain would have the same information. I also received many notes and cards of support from friends and Emil’s family. Many told me how strong I was and how I would be fine. Later, I realized how many of these were from widows who were telling me I would survive bereavement, should that be the outcome.

Emil: The next day, the doctors started me on a 5-day course of the newly “approved” antiviral remdesivir, and the day after that, I received 2 units of convalescent plasma on “compassionate use” from the Mayo Clinic. It didn’t matter. I kept getting worse.

Anne: I received twice-daily updates from the nurses. When the updates were late in coming, I crawled the walls, waiting at least 2 hours before reaching out. One day, the nurse who answered said she couldn’t talk because his nurse was dealing with an emergency with him. I didn’t take a deep breath until his nurse called back to say he was stable. Regardless, he just kept getting sicker and sicker, and I began to fear he would not make it.

Emil: By Day 5, my X-ray showed clear evidence of a bilateral pneumonia (it had appeared “normal” on admission) and I was transferred to a “step-up unit.” The next day, I was transferred to the ICU and placed on a ventilator, in the prone position, for 16 hours a day.

Anne: The day Emil was transferred to the ICU, he told me he was worried about his fate. He called and asked me to stay on the phone with him while waiting to go to the ICU. We were both so weak we couldn’t do more than say “I love you” and listen to the other’s labored breathing. That was our last phone call until he was off the ventilator 10 days later.

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: At this point I had no idea what was going on. I was on a ventilator and I was “out.”

Anne: In the meantime, my family made sure I knew they were thinking of us. Every day I woke up with a text from one cousin asking how the night was while my sister checked in every afternoon. They sent flowers and baskets of goodies. Knowing how difficult it was waiting for updates, they sent me a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand pieces. I was surprised at how important that was for binding my anxiety. A friend sent books from my favorite writers.

Despite all this, I was absolutely beside myself the night Emil was placed on the ventilator. I cleaned and scrubbed the house; not that it needed it, I needed it. In the bedroom I saw a bottle under the bed. I retrieved it but couldn’t get up off the floor. I was weak and had tremendous muscle pain each time I moved. I had my phone, so knew I wouldn’t be stranded, but … I didn’t relish the idea of calling 911 and have them break down the front door in their hazmat suits. After more than 30 minutes, and much effort, I was able to get myself up; soon after, I put a house key outside.

When a friend who was taking care of our 2 dogs in Chicago heard that Emil was on the ventilator, she drove through the night to bring them to me so I would have them for solace. She couldn’t even come in the house. She stayed at a nearby hotel and visited with me from outside with masks on waiting for the updates.

Emil: Being an elder lawyer married to a physician, Anne knows a thing or 2 about medicine (because she’s seen a thing or 2 about medicine). She’s even been known to give her elderly clients Mini-Mental State Exams. In addition to talking with members of her support system, Anne was also talking with friends and relatives who are physicians. One exclaimed, “He’s having a cytokine storm!” and said I needed steroids. Another said, yes, that and serious “anti-inflammatory” drugs. At that moment, data supporting the use of steroids or “anti-inflammatories” in COVID hadn’t yet become public. The data on steroids came out early the next week in the Lancet and the data on “anti-inflammatories” was still in process until a few weeks later.

Continue to: Anne was ahead of the curve...

Anne was ahead of the curve and advocated hard for both treatments. At the same time, my OSUMC physicians were considering other options for me. They were checking on my inflammatory status by following my levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). On Days 2 and 3, my CRP level was 64 mg/L and my IL-6 level was 32 pg/mL (neither should be higher than 1).

While I don’t recall much before being on the ventilator, I do recall my alarm at seeing my CRP/IL-6 levels go up in real time on alerts from “My Chart” (my CRP/IL-6 levels were 149/123 within 4 days of admission, and reached a high of about 250/190 as I entered the ICU). I knew what those numbers meant. It was surreal; like watching myself die off in the distance, emotionally disconnected from the whole scene.

The decision to give steroids was relatively easy, and I was started on dexamethasone, a very inexpensive steroid, on Day 7 (ICU Day 2). The decision of which “antiinflammatory” to give was more difficult, as OSUMC had over 40 treatment protocols for COVID. Anne suggested 2 drugs based on recommendations from our physician friends—tocilizumab and acalabrutinib— both were on the market for other conditions and very expensive. The first is an IL-6 antagonist, while the second shuts down cytokine production in B cells, an effect also observed in lung tissue. While tocilizumab was not included in any of the OSUMC COVID protocols, acalabrutinib was, and I started on that medication on Day 8 (ICU Day 3).

Anne: My experience being the advocate was different than the first time 10 years before. That time, Emil had a community-acquired pneumonia, with which our doctors had much experience. This time, I was more active because no one had much information about how to deal with COVID and, thus, there was no standard of care. In fact, Emil was only the second patient to receive acalabrutinib at OSUMC; later, we found out that that patient did well.

Emil: The “anti-inflammatory” strategy worked. Within 5 days of starting the 2 drugs, my CRP and IL-6 levels were down to 10 and 5, respectively; a reduction of >95%. As these levels dropped, so did my oxygen requirements.

Continue to: Anne's reply

Anne: Emil was finally on the upswing. I woke up the next morning and, surprisingly, found that my first emotion wasn’t one of terror. His ICU doctor, a real booster for Emil, made it her mission to get him off the ventilator before the end of her ICU service week. She succeeded.

Emil: Five days after coming off the ventilator, I went to a rehab unit for reconditioning and to begin the long process of recovering my strength and stamina.

Most people say to me, “How awful for you! How terrible!” I smile and say, “Yeah, well, I missed all the excitement. It was really much worse for Anne.” I told them that, although you don’t recall anything while on the ventilator, you get retrograde amnesia for the several days prior to artificial ventilation. I have texts on my cell phone, written by me in those first few days, I don’t recall writing. Anne says we had conversations all the way up to my admission to the ICU; I recall none of those. Frankly, that’s for the best.

One thing to highlight is that your brain doesn’t stop working while you’re “out.” I had numerous vivid dreams, or whatever they were, while on the ventilator and after. Many were “bizarre and dark,” others were “dark and bizarre.” A few were amusing— in the end. I recall watching a TV news program segment describing how we donated our 2 little dogs to the Queen of England, who then gave them to her youngest son, Edward. I swear, I actually “saw” this TV program and watched the Queen and her son (and his wife) playing with our dogs. I was so convinced, I asked Anne where our dogs were; with her, of course. No, she assured me, we hadn’t given them to Queen Elizabeth II. Another conversation I swore I had with Anne was one in which she was telling me she was starting the vetting process to be a VP candidate for Joe Biden (Anne had been involved in Chicago politics so … not totally “crazy”). Nevertheless, I was quickly disabused of this one by my eldest daughter, also a lawyer.

Anne: This time, like the last time he was on a ventilator, Emil took a few more days to clear all the drugs keeping him sedated. Last time, his medical center sent his colleague, the Chair of Neurology, to check on him because there was a concern that he wasn’t “clearing” fast enough. This time, I was the one reassuring the doctors and nurses to be “patient.” At the same time, I was disabusing him of his far-fetched idea that he was head of all research at OSUMC and head of the ICU. He told me, “I don’t understand it. Don’t these people know they work for me?” “No,” I told him. “You are a patient there, and you need to behave.” Aside from that, Emil was fairly lucid. As one of his nurses said, “He’s oriented, he’s just wrong!”

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: Some people have asked me if this experience has changed my perspective. It could have, but I went through something worse 10 years ago when I was first brought back from the “mostly dead.” After that, I realized the most important things in life are the people you love and the people who love you; the good stuff is “gravy” and everything else isn’t worth spending much time or energy on. The first thing I said to Anne when we were face-to-face, as I entered the rehab facility (with masks on, of course), was “I can’t do this to you again.”

Anne: One of the most inhumane aspects of COVID is that you can’t be with your loved one while they are sick. Last time I spent 10 to 12 hours a day at the bedside. This time I couldn’t be there at all. It was especially hard because I knew from the last time how much my presence meant to him. If I left, he would get agitated. His heart rate would come down by 10 beats when I sat next to him.

When we had our first post-ventilator conversation on Father’s Day, he was surprised I was so excited to talk to him. Somehow, he thought I had abandoned him. What he didn’t know was that I was thinking about getting a job in Housekeeping at the hospital just so I could go see him!

Emil: In the end, I’m now back to baseline and grateful I’m alive. I still have things I want to do professionally and personally, and am appreciative I’ll have more time for those. However, I am appalled at how a serious public health issue has been turned into a political weapon by “science deniers” and that this is continuing to kill our citizens. That’s not a nightmare from when I was ill. It’s the “day-mare” we are living now.

Emil: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wasn’t really on my mind until the first weekend in March, specifically Sunday, March 8, 2020. That weekend had us traveling from Chicago to Berwyn, Pennsylvania to attend the funeral of one of my older cousins. Though we were the only ones from his side at the graveside, his funeral had drawn numerous relatives, none of whom were “socially distanced.”

On our way home, I received an e-mail from a colleague in Brazil who had invited me to speak at a conference in São Paulo. He told me that several of my American colleagues had contacted him and informed him that their universities had banned travel because of COVID. “I’m coming,” I replied. “I don’t think COVID’s going to be a big deal here.” He said COVID wasn’t a “big deal” in Brazil, either. Famous last words.

The next weekend, I left early on Saturday morning to start my call duty at the hospital. After finishing rounds at one hospital and going to the next, I got a text from my wife, Anne, asking “What’s wrong with your people over there? What kind of doctors would take a 65-year-old colleague with a history of asthma, and history of an ICU stay with 10 days on a respirator with acute respiratory distress syndrome 10 years ago, and have him exposed to this lethal virus? Are they trying to kill you?”

It stopped me in my tracks. She was right. A lot had changed in a week. In that single week, it had become clear that COVID was a real threat, and I was vulnerable. I finished my call duty but made it clear to the “powers that be” I was going to stay home and isolate for the next few weeks, until we knew more. I was ahead of the curve, but not by much: within days, Chicago shut down with a “stay-at-home” order.

Anne: When the threat of COVID first became known, I said to family and friends, “If Emil gets this, it’s going to be very, very bad.” After that, we made certain to wear masks and gloves when we went out, which wasn’t often.

Emil: We stayed in for the next 3 months until we moved to Columbus, Ohio for my new position as Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUMC).

The day after arriving, I went to the emergency dental clinic because of a severe toothache. While they couldn’t save my tooth, I got something in return: COVID. The clinic took more than appropriate precautions, but I was in a very large room, not a private office, with many patients having their teeth drilled and whatever it is dentists do (actually, I do know; my father was a dentist).

Continue to: All was fine until 2 days later...

All was fine until 2 days later, when I began to feel a bit “unwell” on late Friday afternoon. I went out to do some chores the next morning, but soon returned home exhausted. The rest of the weekend was more of the same, and I was surprised at how I just couldn’t get anything done. On Monday, I felt a chill and thought I might have COVID.

The next morning, I went to OSUMC for a COVID test, but by then I already knew the result. The night before, Anne started complaining of a dry cough that would not stop.

Anne: When I realized Emil had COVID, I wrote to a friend, “If he gets bad and has to go to the hospital, or worse … he goes on a ventilator, I may need to be admitted to a psych ward!” I was still upset from the memory of sitting by Emil’s bedside when he was sick, and on a ventilator, 10 years ago, with his doctors talking with me about when, not if, he died.

Emil: My test came back within 8 hours on Tuesday. It was positive, as was the one for Anne the next day. The doctor I spoke to that evening thought I was only having a mild case and that I should just stay isolated. We immediately got a thermometer and a pulse oximeter to follow our symptoms. Anne’s oxygen saturation levels were always above 95%, but mine were lower, and by Friday, 3 days later and 1 week after my first symptoms, they were down to 92% or less. At that point, we both went to the ER at OSUMC.

Anne: We went to different places in the ER to be evaluated. As Emil was being wheeled away in the ER for his evaluation, I ran over for a kiss—with our masks on.

Continue to: As my ER evaluation...

As my ER evaluation was concluding, my doctor said, “I want someone, preferably the same person, to check in on you every day.” I replied I had a friend who is a critical care nurse. He smiled and said, “Excellent.” My friend called every day, and when she didn’t like how I sounded, on some days, she found an excuse to call again.

Emil: I barely recall my ER evaluation, except that I was to be admitted for observation and supplemental oxygen. I accepted this with aplomb, knowing I was in good hands and hoping I’d be home soon.

Anne: Because we were in the same ER, I thought I’d be able to see Emil once they decided to admit him. No. They wouldn’t even let me go to him to get his wallet for safekeeping. Instead, it was brought to me in a hazmat bag. Thus began our forced separation for the next 5 weeks.

Emil: I had to wait hours for a bed and was wheeled up late in the evening to a double room with one other patient, also with COVID, I supposed. While I had an oxygen mask on, we were only separated by a curtain. I had no idea I wouldn’t see Anne for weeks.

Anne: I returned “home” to a house I had spent less than 5 days in. We had barely moved in and it only had a bed, a couch, a TV, and a kitchen chair. I didn’t even know my neighbors to wave at, and … I was in quarantine. No one could come to me. Our eldest daughter was alone near Burlington, Vermont (where she had escaped to from New York City when it was the national epicenter for COVID back in March). Our youngest daughter was alone in Los Angeles, and our son, a newly minted First Lieutenant in the Army, was stationed in Afghanistan. “Good for him,” I thought. He could safely interact with his army buddies. It was so ironic; the one in the war zone was the only one of us who was safe from COVID.

Continue to: I reached out to family and friends...

I reached out to family and friends and asked for prayers. Emil was prayed for by all of our Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist friends. As I told him later, he was prayed for from Afghanistan to Alaska. My extended family activated a text chain so all I had to do was reply and everyone on the chain would have the same information. I also received many notes and cards of support from friends and Emil’s family. Many told me how strong I was and how I would be fine. Later, I realized how many of these were from widows who were telling me I would survive bereavement, should that be the outcome.

Emil: The next day, the doctors started me on a 5-day course of the newly “approved” antiviral remdesivir, and the day after that, I received 2 units of convalescent plasma on “compassionate use” from the Mayo Clinic. It didn’t matter. I kept getting worse.

Anne: I received twice-daily updates from the nurses. When the updates were late in coming, I crawled the walls, waiting at least 2 hours before reaching out. One day, the nurse who answered said she couldn’t talk because his nurse was dealing with an emergency with him. I didn’t take a deep breath until his nurse called back to say he was stable. Regardless, he just kept getting sicker and sicker, and I began to fear he would not make it.

Emil: By Day 5, my X-ray showed clear evidence of a bilateral pneumonia (it had appeared “normal” on admission) and I was transferred to a “step-up unit.” The next day, I was transferred to the ICU and placed on a ventilator, in the prone position, for 16 hours a day.

Anne: The day Emil was transferred to the ICU, he told me he was worried about his fate. He called and asked me to stay on the phone with him while waiting to go to the ICU. We were both so weak we couldn’t do more than say “I love you” and listen to the other’s labored breathing. That was our last phone call until he was off the ventilator 10 days later.

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: At this point I had no idea what was going on. I was on a ventilator and I was “out.”

Anne: In the meantime, my family made sure I knew they were thinking of us. Every day I woke up with a text from one cousin asking how the night was while my sister checked in every afternoon. They sent flowers and baskets of goodies. Knowing how difficult it was waiting for updates, they sent me a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand pieces. I was surprised at how important that was for binding my anxiety. A friend sent books from my favorite writers.

Despite all this, I was absolutely beside myself the night Emil was placed on the ventilator. I cleaned and scrubbed the house; not that it needed it, I needed it. In the bedroom I saw a bottle under the bed. I retrieved it but couldn’t get up off the floor. I was weak and had tremendous muscle pain each time I moved. I had my phone, so knew I wouldn’t be stranded, but … I didn’t relish the idea of calling 911 and have them break down the front door in their hazmat suits. After more than 30 minutes, and much effort, I was able to get myself up; soon after, I put a house key outside.

When a friend who was taking care of our 2 dogs in Chicago heard that Emil was on the ventilator, she drove through the night to bring them to me so I would have them for solace. She couldn’t even come in the house. She stayed at a nearby hotel and visited with me from outside with masks on waiting for the updates.

Emil: Being an elder lawyer married to a physician, Anne knows a thing or 2 about medicine (because she’s seen a thing or 2 about medicine). She’s even been known to give her elderly clients Mini-Mental State Exams. In addition to talking with members of her support system, Anne was also talking with friends and relatives who are physicians. One exclaimed, “He’s having a cytokine storm!” and said I needed steroids. Another said, yes, that and serious “anti-inflammatory” drugs. At that moment, data supporting the use of steroids or “anti-inflammatories” in COVID hadn’t yet become public. The data on steroids came out early the next week in the Lancet and the data on “anti-inflammatories” was still in process until a few weeks later.

Continue to: Anne was ahead of the curve...

Anne was ahead of the curve and advocated hard for both treatments. At the same time, my OSUMC physicians were considering other options for me. They were checking on my inflammatory status by following my levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). On Days 2 and 3, my CRP level was 64 mg/L and my IL-6 level was 32 pg/mL (neither should be higher than 1).

While I don’t recall much before being on the ventilator, I do recall my alarm at seeing my CRP/IL-6 levels go up in real time on alerts from “My Chart” (my CRP/IL-6 levels were 149/123 within 4 days of admission, and reached a high of about 250/190 as I entered the ICU). I knew what those numbers meant. It was surreal; like watching myself die off in the distance, emotionally disconnected from the whole scene.

The decision to give steroids was relatively easy, and I was started on dexamethasone, a very inexpensive steroid, on Day 7 (ICU Day 2). The decision of which “antiinflammatory” to give was more difficult, as OSUMC had over 40 treatment protocols for COVID. Anne suggested 2 drugs based on recommendations from our physician friends—tocilizumab and acalabrutinib— both were on the market for other conditions and very expensive. The first is an IL-6 antagonist, while the second shuts down cytokine production in B cells, an effect also observed in lung tissue. While tocilizumab was not included in any of the OSUMC COVID protocols, acalabrutinib was, and I started on that medication on Day 8 (ICU Day 3).

Anne: My experience being the advocate was different than the first time 10 years before. That time, Emil had a community-acquired pneumonia, with which our doctors had much experience. This time, I was more active because no one had much information about how to deal with COVID and, thus, there was no standard of care. In fact, Emil was only the second patient to receive acalabrutinib at OSUMC; later, we found out that that patient did well.

Emil: The “anti-inflammatory” strategy worked. Within 5 days of starting the 2 drugs, my CRP and IL-6 levels were down to 10 and 5, respectively; a reduction of >95%. As these levels dropped, so did my oxygen requirements.

Continue to: Anne's reply

Anne: Emil was finally on the upswing. I woke up the next morning and, surprisingly, found that my first emotion wasn’t one of terror. His ICU doctor, a real booster for Emil, made it her mission to get him off the ventilator before the end of her ICU service week. She succeeded.

Emil: Five days after coming off the ventilator, I went to a rehab unit for reconditioning and to begin the long process of recovering my strength and stamina.

Most people say to me, “How awful for you! How terrible!” I smile and say, “Yeah, well, I missed all the excitement. It was really much worse for Anne.” I told them that, although you don’t recall anything while on the ventilator, you get retrograde amnesia for the several days prior to artificial ventilation. I have texts on my cell phone, written by me in those first few days, I don’t recall writing. Anne says we had conversations all the way up to my admission to the ICU; I recall none of those. Frankly, that’s for the best.

One thing to highlight is that your brain doesn’t stop working while you’re “out.” I had numerous vivid dreams, or whatever they were, while on the ventilator and after. Many were “bizarre and dark,” others were “dark and bizarre.” A few were amusing— in the end. I recall watching a TV news program segment describing how we donated our 2 little dogs to the Queen of England, who then gave them to her youngest son, Edward. I swear, I actually “saw” this TV program and watched the Queen and her son (and his wife) playing with our dogs. I was so convinced, I asked Anne where our dogs were; with her, of course. No, she assured me, we hadn’t given them to Queen Elizabeth II. Another conversation I swore I had with Anne was one in which she was telling me she was starting the vetting process to be a VP candidate for Joe Biden (Anne had been involved in Chicago politics so … not totally “crazy”). Nevertheless, I was quickly disabused of this one by my eldest daughter, also a lawyer.

Anne: This time, like the last time he was on a ventilator, Emil took a few more days to clear all the drugs keeping him sedated. Last time, his medical center sent his colleague, the Chair of Neurology, to check on him because there was a concern that he wasn’t “clearing” fast enough. This time, I was the one reassuring the doctors and nurses to be “patient.” At the same time, I was disabusing him of his far-fetched idea that he was head of all research at OSUMC and head of the ICU. He told me, “I don’t understand it. Don’t these people know they work for me?” “No,” I told him. “You are a patient there, and you need to behave.” Aside from that, Emil was fairly lucid. As one of his nurses said, “He’s oriented, he’s just wrong!”

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: Some people have asked me if this experience has changed my perspective. It could have, but I went through something worse 10 years ago when I was first brought back from the “mostly dead.” After that, I realized the most important things in life are the people you love and the people who love you; the good stuff is “gravy” and everything else isn’t worth spending much time or energy on. The first thing I said to Anne when we were face-to-face, as I entered the rehab facility (with masks on, of course), was “I can’t do this to you again.”

Anne: One of the most inhumane aspects of COVID is that you can’t be with your loved one while they are sick. Last time I spent 10 to 12 hours a day at the bedside. This time I couldn’t be there at all. It was especially hard because I knew from the last time how much my presence meant to him. If I left, he would get agitated. His heart rate would come down by 10 beats when I sat next to him.

When we had our first post-ventilator conversation on Father’s Day, he was surprised I was so excited to talk to him. Somehow, he thought I had abandoned him. What he didn’t know was that I was thinking about getting a job in Housekeeping at the hospital just so I could go see him!

Emil: In the end, I’m now back to baseline and grateful I’m alive. I still have things I want to do professionally and personally, and am appreciative I’ll have more time for those. However, I am appalled at how a serious public health issue has been turned into a political weapon by “science deniers” and that this is continuing to kill our citizens. That’s not a nightmare from when I was ill. It’s the “day-mare” we are living now.

Emil: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wasn’t really on my mind until the first weekend in March, specifically Sunday, March 8, 2020. That weekend had us traveling from Chicago to Berwyn, Pennsylvania to attend the funeral of one of my older cousins. Though we were the only ones from his side at the graveside, his funeral had drawn numerous relatives, none of whom were “socially distanced.”

On our way home, I received an e-mail from a colleague in Brazil who had invited me to speak at a conference in São Paulo. He told me that several of my American colleagues had contacted him and informed him that their universities had banned travel because of COVID. “I’m coming,” I replied. “I don’t think COVID’s going to be a big deal here.” He said COVID wasn’t a “big deal” in Brazil, either. Famous last words.

The next weekend, I left early on Saturday morning to start my call duty at the hospital. After finishing rounds at one hospital and going to the next, I got a text from my wife, Anne, asking “What’s wrong with your people over there? What kind of doctors would take a 65-year-old colleague with a history of asthma, and history of an ICU stay with 10 days on a respirator with acute respiratory distress syndrome 10 years ago, and have him exposed to this lethal virus? Are they trying to kill you?”

It stopped me in my tracks. She was right. A lot had changed in a week. In that single week, it had become clear that COVID was a real threat, and I was vulnerable. I finished my call duty but made it clear to the “powers that be” I was going to stay home and isolate for the next few weeks, until we knew more. I was ahead of the curve, but not by much: within days, Chicago shut down with a “stay-at-home” order.

Anne: When the threat of COVID first became known, I said to family and friends, “If Emil gets this, it’s going to be very, very bad.” After that, we made certain to wear masks and gloves when we went out, which wasn’t often.

Emil: We stayed in for the next 3 months until we moved to Columbus, Ohio for my new position as Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUMC).

The day after arriving, I went to the emergency dental clinic because of a severe toothache. While they couldn’t save my tooth, I got something in return: COVID. The clinic took more than appropriate precautions, but I was in a very large room, not a private office, with many patients having their teeth drilled and whatever it is dentists do (actually, I do know; my father was a dentist).

Continue to: All was fine until 2 days later...

All was fine until 2 days later, when I began to feel a bit “unwell” on late Friday afternoon. I went out to do some chores the next morning, but soon returned home exhausted. The rest of the weekend was more of the same, and I was surprised at how I just couldn’t get anything done. On Monday, I felt a chill and thought I might have COVID.

The next morning, I went to OSUMC for a COVID test, but by then I already knew the result. The night before, Anne started complaining of a dry cough that would not stop.

Anne: When I realized Emil had COVID, I wrote to a friend, “If he gets bad and has to go to the hospital, or worse … he goes on a ventilator, I may need to be admitted to a psych ward!” I was still upset from the memory of sitting by Emil’s bedside when he was sick, and on a ventilator, 10 years ago, with his doctors talking with me about when, not if, he died.

Emil: My test came back within 8 hours on Tuesday. It was positive, as was the one for Anne the next day. The doctor I spoke to that evening thought I was only having a mild case and that I should just stay isolated. We immediately got a thermometer and a pulse oximeter to follow our symptoms. Anne’s oxygen saturation levels were always above 95%, but mine were lower, and by Friday, 3 days later and 1 week after my first symptoms, they were down to 92% or less. At that point, we both went to the ER at OSUMC.

Anne: We went to different places in the ER to be evaluated. As Emil was being wheeled away in the ER for his evaluation, I ran over for a kiss—with our masks on.

Continue to: As my ER evaluation...

As my ER evaluation was concluding, my doctor said, “I want someone, preferably the same person, to check in on you every day.” I replied I had a friend who is a critical care nurse. He smiled and said, “Excellent.” My friend called every day, and when she didn’t like how I sounded, on some days, she found an excuse to call again.

Emil: I barely recall my ER evaluation, except that I was to be admitted for observation and supplemental oxygen. I accepted this with aplomb, knowing I was in good hands and hoping I’d be home soon.

Anne: Because we were in the same ER, I thought I’d be able to see Emil once they decided to admit him. No. They wouldn’t even let me go to him to get his wallet for safekeeping. Instead, it was brought to me in a hazmat bag. Thus began our forced separation for the next 5 weeks.

Emil: I had to wait hours for a bed and was wheeled up late in the evening to a double room with one other patient, also with COVID, I supposed. While I had an oxygen mask on, we were only separated by a curtain. I had no idea I wouldn’t see Anne for weeks.

Anne: I returned “home” to a house I had spent less than 5 days in. We had barely moved in and it only had a bed, a couch, a TV, and a kitchen chair. I didn’t even know my neighbors to wave at, and … I was in quarantine. No one could come to me. Our eldest daughter was alone near Burlington, Vermont (where she had escaped to from New York City when it was the national epicenter for COVID back in March). Our youngest daughter was alone in Los Angeles, and our son, a newly minted First Lieutenant in the Army, was stationed in Afghanistan. “Good for him,” I thought. He could safely interact with his army buddies. It was so ironic; the one in the war zone was the only one of us who was safe from COVID.

Continue to: I reached out to family and friends...

I reached out to family and friends and asked for prayers. Emil was prayed for by all of our Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist friends. As I told him later, he was prayed for from Afghanistan to Alaska. My extended family activated a text chain so all I had to do was reply and everyone on the chain would have the same information. I also received many notes and cards of support from friends and Emil’s family. Many told me how strong I was and how I would be fine. Later, I realized how many of these were from widows who were telling me I would survive bereavement, should that be the outcome.

Emil: The next day, the doctors started me on a 5-day course of the newly “approved” antiviral remdesivir, and the day after that, I received 2 units of convalescent plasma on “compassionate use” from the Mayo Clinic. It didn’t matter. I kept getting worse.

Anne: I received twice-daily updates from the nurses. When the updates were late in coming, I crawled the walls, waiting at least 2 hours before reaching out. One day, the nurse who answered said she couldn’t talk because his nurse was dealing with an emergency with him. I didn’t take a deep breath until his nurse called back to say he was stable. Regardless, he just kept getting sicker and sicker, and I began to fear he would not make it.

Emil: By Day 5, my X-ray showed clear evidence of a bilateral pneumonia (it had appeared “normal” on admission) and I was transferred to a “step-up unit.” The next day, I was transferred to the ICU and placed on a ventilator, in the prone position, for 16 hours a day.

Anne: The day Emil was transferred to the ICU, he told me he was worried about his fate. He called and asked me to stay on the phone with him while waiting to go to the ICU. We were both so weak we couldn’t do more than say “I love you” and listen to the other’s labored breathing. That was our last phone call until he was off the ventilator 10 days later.

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: At this point I had no idea what was going on. I was on a ventilator and I was “out.”

Anne: In the meantime, my family made sure I knew they were thinking of us. Every day I woke up with a text from one cousin asking how the night was while my sister checked in every afternoon. They sent flowers and baskets of goodies. Knowing how difficult it was waiting for updates, they sent me a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand pieces. I was surprised at how important that was for binding my anxiety. A friend sent books from my favorite writers.

Despite all this, I was absolutely beside myself the night Emil was placed on the ventilator. I cleaned and scrubbed the house; not that it needed it, I needed it. In the bedroom I saw a bottle under the bed. I retrieved it but couldn’t get up off the floor. I was weak and had tremendous muscle pain each time I moved. I had my phone, so knew I wouldn’t be stranded, but … I didn’t relish the idea of calling 911 and have them break down the front door in their hazmat suits. After more than 30 minutes, and much effort, I was able to get myself up; soon after, I put a house key outside.

When a friend who was taking care of our 2 dogs in Chicago heard that Emil was on the ventilator, she drove through the night to bring them to me so I would have them for solace. She couldn’t even come in the house. She stayed at a nearby hotel and visited with me from outside with masks on waiting for the updates.

Emil: Being an elder lawyer married to a physician, Anne knows a thing or 2 about medicine (because she’s seen a thing or 2 about medicine). She’s even been known to give her elderly clients Mini-Mental State Exams. In addition to talking with members of her support system, Anne was also talking with friends and relatives who are physicians. One exclaimed, “He’s having a cytokine storm!” and said I needed steroids. Another said, yes, that and serious “anti-inflammatory” drugs. At that moment, data supporting the use of steroids or “anti-inflammatories” in COVID hadn’t yet become public. The data on steroids came out early the next week in the Lancet and the data on “anti-inflammatories” was still in process until a few weeks later.

Continue to: Anne was ahead of the curve...

Anne was ahead of the curve and advocated hard for both treatments. At the same time, my OSUMC physicians were considering other options for me. They were checking on my inflammatory status by following my levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). On Days 2 and 3, my CRP level was 64 mg/L and my IL-6 level was 32 pg/mL (neither should be higher than 1).

While I don’t recall much before being on the ventilator, I do recall my alarm at seeing my CRP/IL-6 levels go up in real time on alerts from “My Chart” (my CRP/IL-6 levels were 149/123 within 4 days of admission, and reached a high of about 250/190 as I entered the ICU). I knew what those numbers meant. It was surreal; like watching myself die off in the distance, emotionally disconnected from the whole scene.

The decision to give steroids was relatively easy, and I was started on dexamethasone, a very inexpensive steroid, on Day 7 (ICU Day 2). The decision of which “antiinflammatory” to give was more difficult, as OSUMC had over 40 treatment protocols for COVID. Anne suggested 2 drugs based on recommendations from our physician friends—tocilizumab and acalabrutinib— both were on the market for other conditions and very expensive. The first is an IL-6 antagonist, while the second shuts down cytokine production in B cells, an effect also observed in lung tissue. While tocilizumab was not included in any of the OSUMC COVID protocols, acalabrutinib was, and I started on that medication on Day 8 (ICU Day 3).

Anne: My experience being the advocate was different than the first time 10 years before. That time, Emil had a community-acquired pneumonia, with which our doctors had much experience. This time, I was more active because no one had much information about how to deal with COVID and, thus, there was no standard of care. In fact, Emil was only the second patient to receive acalabrutinib at OSUMC; later, we found out that that patient did well.

Emil: The “anti-inflammatory” strategy worked. Within 5 days of starting the 2 drugs, my CRP and IL-6 levels were down to 10 and 5, respectively; a reduction of >95%. As these levels dropped, so did my oxygen requirements.

Continue to: Anne's reply

Anne: Emil was finally on the upswing. I woke up the next morning and, surprisingly, found that my first emotion wasn’t one of terror. His ICU doctor, a real booster for Emil, made it her mission to get him off the ventilator before the end of her ICU service week. She succeeded.

Emil: Five days after coming off the ventilator, I went to a rehab unit for reconditioning and to begin the long process of recovering my strength and stamina.

Most people say to me, “How awful for you! How terrible!” I smile and say, “Yeah, well, I missed all the excitement. It was really much worse for Anne.” I told them that, although you don’t recall anything while on the ventilator, you get retrograde amnesia for the several days prior to artificial ventilation. I have texts on my cell phone, written by me in those first few days, I don’t recall writing. Anne says we had conversations all the way up to my admission to the ICU; I recall none of those. Frankly, that’s for the best.

One thing to highlight is that your brain doesn’t stop working while you’re “out.” I had numerous vivid dreams, or whatever they were, while on the ventilator and after. Many were “bizarre and dark,” others were “dark and bizarre.” A few were amusing— in the end. I recall watching a TV news program segment describing how we donated our 2 little dogs to the Queen of England, who then gave them to her youngest son, Edward. I swear, I actually “saw” this TV program and watched the Queen and her son (and his wife) playing with our dogs. I was so convinced, I asked Anne where our dogs were; with her, of course. No, she assured me, we hadn’t given them to Queen Elizabeth II. Another conversation I swore I had with Anne was one in which she was telling me she was starting the vetting process to be a VP candidate for Joe Biden (Anne had been involved in Chicago politics so … not totally “crazy”). Nevertheless, I was quickly disabused of this one by my eldest daughter, also a lawyer.

Anne: This time, like the last time he was on a ventilator, Emil took a few more days to clear all the drugs keeping him sedated. Last time, his medical center sent his colleague, the Chair of Neurology, to check on him because there was a concern that he wasn’t “clearing” fast enough. This time, I was the one reassuring the doctors and nurses to be “patient.” At the same time, I was disabusing him of his far-fetched idea that he was head of all research at OSUMC and head of the ICU. He told me, “I don’t understand it. Don’t these people know they work for me?” “No,” I told him. “You are a patient there, and you need to behave.” Aside from that, Emil was fairly lucid. As one of his nurses said, “He’s oriented, he’s just wrong!”

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: Some people have asked me if this experience has changed my perspective. It could have, but I went through something worse 10 years ago when I was first brought back from the “mostly dead.” After that, I realized the most important things in life are the people you love and the people who love you; the good stuff is “gravy” and everything else isn’t worth spending much time or energy on. The first thing I said to Anne when we were face-to-face, as I entered the rehab facility (with masks on, of course), was “I can’t do this to you again.”

Anne: One of the most inhumane aspects of COVID is that you can’t be with your loved one while they are sick. Last time I spent 10 to 12 hours a day at the bedside. This time I couldn’t be there at all. It was especially hard because I knew from the last time how much my presence meant to him. If I left, he would get agitated. His heart rate would come down by 10 beats when I sat next to him.

When we had our first post-ventilator conversation on Father’s Day, he was surprised I was so excited to talk to him. Somehow, he thought I had abandoned him. What he didn’t know was that I was thinking about getting a job in Housekeeping at the hospital just so I could go see him!

Emil: In the end, I’m now back to baseline and grateful I’m alive. I still have things I want to do professionally and personally, and am appreciative I’ll have more time for those. However, I am appalled at how a serious public health issue has been turned into a political weapon by “science deniers” and that this is continuing to kill our citizens. That’s not a nightmare from when I was ill. It’s the “day-mare” we are living now.

Christopher Pribula, MD, a hospitalist at Sanford Broadway Medical Center in Fargo, N.D., didn’t anticipate becoming his hospital’s resident expert on COVID-19. Having just returned from vacation in March, he agreed to cover for a colleague on what would become the special care unit. “When our hospital medicine group decided that it would be the COVID unit, I just ran with it,” he said. Dr. Pribula spent the next 18 days doing 8- to 14-hour shifts and learning as much as he could as the hospital – and the nation – wrestled with the pandemic.

“Because I was the first hospitalist, along with our infectious disease specialist, Dr. Avish Nagpal, to really engage with the virus, people came to me with their questions,” Dr. Pribula said. Working to establish protocols for the care of COVID-19 patients involved a lot of planning, from nursing protocols to discharge planning.

Dr. Pribula was part of the hospital’s incident command structure, thought about how the system could scale up for a potential surge, and worked with the North Dakota Medical Association to reach out to outlying medical centers on safety and infection control. He even drew on his prior work experience as a medical technologist doing negative-pressure containment in a cell-processing facility to help create the hospital’s negative-pressure unit in an old ICU.

“We did a lot of communication from the start. To a certain extent we were making it up as we went along, but we sat down and huddled as a team every day at 9 and 4,” he explained. “We started out with observation and retrospective research, and learned piece by piece. But that’s how science works.”

Hospitalists across the country have played leading roles in their hospitals’ and health systems’ response to the pandemic, and not just because they are on the front lines providing patient care. Their job as doctors who work full-time in the hospital makes them natural leaders in improving clinical quality and hospital administrative protocols as well as studying the latest information and educating their colleagues. Responding to the pandemic has required lots of planning, careful attention to schedules and assignments and staff stress, and working with other departments in the hospital and groups in the community, including public health authorities.
 

Where is hospital treatment for COVID-19 at today?

As knowledge has grown, Dr. Pribula said, COVID-19 treatment in the hospital has come to incorporate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral; dexamethasone, a common steroid medication; and convalescent plasma, blood products from people who have recovered from the illness. “We went from no steroids to giving steroids. We went from putting patients on ventilators to avoid acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) initially to now working to avoid intubation at all costs,” he said.

“What we found is that we need to pressure-support these patients. We do proning and CPAP while we let the lungs heal. By the time they arrive at the hospital, more often than not they’re on the backside of the viral load. But now we’re dealing with the body’s inflammatory response.”

Navneet Attri, MD, a hospitalist at Sutter Santa Rosa Regional Hospital in Santa Rosa, Calif., 50 miles north of San Francisco, experienced fears and uncertainties working at a hospital that treated early COVID patients from the Grand Princess cruise ship. Early on, she wrote a post describing her experience for The Hospitalist Leader, the Society of Hospital Medicine’s blog page.

Dr. Attri said she has gone through the gamut of emotions while caring for COVID-19 patients, addressing their fears and trying to support family members who aren’t allowed to enter the hospital to be at their loved one’s side. Sometimes, patient after patient with COVID-19 becomes almost too much. But seeing a lot of them in the intervening 6 months has increased her confidence level.

Understanding of how the disease is spread has continued to evolve, with a recent return to focusing on airborne transmission, she said. Frontline workers need N95 masks and eye shields, even if all of that PPE feels like a burden. Dr. Attri said she hardly notices the PPE anymore. “Putting it on is just a habit.”

She sits on Sonoma County’s COVID-19 surge planning group, which has representatives from the three local hospitals, the public health department, and other community agencies. “I report back to my hospitalist group about the situation in the community. Because our facilities were well prepared, our hospitals have not been overwhelmed,” she said.
 

The importance of teamwork

Sunil Shah, MD, a hospitalist with Northwell Health’s Southside Hospital in Bay Shore, N.Y., is part of the massive hospital medicine team, including reassigned specialists and volunteers from across the country, deployed at Northwell hospitals in Greater New York City and Long Island during the COVID-19 surge. Northwell probably has cared for more COVID-19 patients than any other health system in the country, and at the height of the surge the intensity of hospital care was like nothing he’s ever seen. But he also expressed gratitude that doctors from other parts of the country were willing to come and help out.

Southside Hospital went almost overnight from a 200-bed acute facility to a full, 350-bed, regional COVID-19–only hospital. “On busy days, our entire hospital was like a floating ICU,” he said. “You’d hear ‘rapid response’ or ‘code blue’ over the intercom every few seconds. Normally we’d have a designated rapid response person for the day, but with COVID, everybody stepped in to help – whoever was closest,” he said.

Majid Sheikh, MD, a hospitalist at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, also became a go-to COVID-19 expert for his group. “I didn’t specifically volunteer, but my partner and I had the first cases, and the leadership group was happy to have us there,” he explained.

“One interesting thing I learned was the concept of the ‘happy’ hypoxemic patient, who is having a significant drop in oxygen saturation without developing any obvious signs of respiratory distress,” he said. “We’d be checking the accuracy of the reading and trying to figure out if it was real.” Emory was also one of the leaders in studying anticoagulant treatments for COVID-19 patients.

“Six months later I would say we’re definitely getting better outcomes on the floor, and our COVID patients aren’t landing in the ICU as easily,” Dr. Sheikh said. “It was scary at first, and doubly scary when doctors sometimes don’t feel they can say, ‘Hey, I’m scared too,’ or ‘By the way, I really don’t know what I’m doing.’ So, we’d be trying to reassure the patients when the information was coming to us in fragments.”

But he also believes that the pandemic has afforded hospitalists the opportunity to be the clinical detectives they were trained to be, sifting through clues. “I had to think more and really pay attention clinically in a much different way. You could say it was exciting and scary at the same time,” he said.
 

A human fix in the hospital

Dr. Pribula agreed that the pandemic has been both a difficult experience and a rewarding one. “I think of the people I first admitted. If they had shown up even a month later, would they still be with us?” He believes that his group and his field are going to get to a place where they have solid treatment plans for how to provide optimal care and how to protect providers from exposure.

One of the first COVID-19 patients in Fargo had dementia and was very distressed. “She had no idea why nobody was visiting or why we wouldn’t let her out of her room,” Dr. Pribula said. “Instead of reaching for sedatives, one of our nurses went into the room and talked with her, prayed a rosary, and played two hands of cards with her and didn’t have to sedate her. That’s what people need when they’re alone and scared. It wasn’t a medical fix but a human fix.”
 

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

Christopher Pribula, MD, a hospitalist at Sanford Broadway Medical Center in Fargo, N.D., didn’t anticipate becoming his hospital’s resident expert on COVID-19. Having just returned from vacation in March, he agreed to cover for a colleague on what would become the special care unit. “When our hospital medicine group decided that it would be the COVID unit, I just ran with it,” he said. Dr. Pribula spent the next 18 days doing 8- to 14-hour shifts and learning as much as he could as the hospital – and the nation – wrestled with the pandemic.

“Because I was the first hospitalist, along with our infectious disease specialist, Dr. Avish Nagpal, to really engage with the virus, people came to me with their questions,” Dr. Pribula said. Working to establish protocols for the care of COVID-19 patients involved a lot of planning, from nursing protocols to discharge planning.

Dr. Pribula was part of the hospital’s incident command structure, thought about how the system could scale up for a potential surge, and worked with the North Dakota Medical Association to reach out to outlying medical centers on safety and infection control. He even drew on his prior work experience as a medical technologist doing negative-pressure containment in a cell-processing facility to help create the hospital’s negative-pressure unit in an old ICU.

“We did a lot of communication from the start. To a certain extent we were making it up as we went along, but we sat down and huddled as a team every day at 9 and 4,” he explained. “We started out with observation and retrospective research, and learned piece by piece. But that’s how science works.”

Hospitalists across the country have played leading roles in their hospitals’ and health systems’ response to the pandemic, and not just because they are on the front lines providing patient care. Their job as doctors who work full-time in the hospital makes them natural leaders in improving clinical quality and hospital administrative protocols as well as studying the latest information and educating their colleagues. Responding to the pandemic has required lots of planning, careful attention to schedules and assignments and staff stress, and working with other departments in the hospital and groups in the community, including public health authorities.
 

Where is hospital treatment for COVID-19 at today?

As knowledge has grown, Dr. Pribula said, COVID-19 treatment in the hospital has come to incorporate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral; dexamethasone, a common steroid medication; and convalescent plasma, blood products from people who have recovered from the illness. “We went from no steroids to giving steroids. We went from putting patients on ventilators to avoid acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) initially to now working to avoid intubation at all costs,” he said.

“What we found is that we need to pressure-support these patients. We do proning and CPAP while we let the lungs heal. By the time they arrive at the hospital, more often than not they’re on the backside of the viral load. But now we’re dealing with the body’s inflammatory response.”

Navneet Attri, MD, a hospitalist at Sutter Santa Rosa Regional Hospital in Santa Rosa, Calif., 50 miles north of San Francisco, experienced fears and uncertainties working at a hospital that treated early COVID patients from the Grand Princess cruise ship. Early on, she wrote a post describing her experience for The Hospitalist Leader, the Society of Hospital Medicine’s blog page.

Dr. Attri said she has gone through the gamut of emotions while caring for COVID-19 patients, addressing their fears and trying to support family members who aren’t allowed to enter the hospital to be at their loved one’s side. Sometimes, patient after patient with COVID-19 becomes almost too much. But seeing a lot of them in the intervening 6 months has increased her confidence level.

Understanding of how the disease is spread has continued to evolve, with a recent return to focusing on airborne transmission, she said. Frontline workers need N95 masks and eye shields, even if all of that PPE feels like a burden. Dr. Attri said she hardly notices the PPE anymore. “Putting it on is just a habit.”

She sits on Sonoma County’s COVID-19 surge planning group, which has representatives from the three local hospitals, the public health department, and other community agencies. “I report back to my hospitalist group about the situation in the community. Because our facilities were well prepared, our hospitals have not been overwhelmed,” she said.
 

The importance of teamwork

Sunil Shah, MD, a hospitalist with Northwell Health’s Southside Hospital in Bay Shore, N.Y., is part of the massive hospital medicine team, including reassigned specialists and volunteers from across the country, deployed at Northwell hospitals in Greater New York City and Long Island during the COVID-19 surge. Northwell probably has cared for more COVID-19 patients than any other health system in the country, and at the height of the surge the intensity of hospital care was like nothing he’s ever seen. But he also expressed gratitude that doctors from other parts of the country were willing to come and help out.

Southside Hospital went almost overnight from a 200-bed acute facility to a full, 350-bed, regional COVID-19–only hospital. “On busy days, our entire hospital was like a floating ICU,” he said. “You’d hear ‘rapid response’ or ‘code blue’ over the intercom every few seconds. Normally we’d have a designated rapid response person for the day, but with COVID, everybody stepped in to help – whoever was closest,” he said.

Majid Sheikh, MD, a hospitalist at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, also became a go-to COVID-19 expert for his group. “I didn’t specifically volunteer, but my partner and I had the first cases, and the leadership group was happy to have us there,” he explained.

“One interesting thing I learned was the concept of the ‘happy’ hypoxemic patient, who is having a significant drop in oxygen saturation without developing any obvious signs of respiratory distress,” he said. “We’d be checking the accuracy of the reading and trying to figure out if it was real.” Emory was also one of the leaders in studying anticoagulant treatments for COVID-19 patients.

“Six months later I would say we’re definitely getting better outcomes on the floor, and our COVID patients aren’t landing in the ICU as easily,” Dr. Sheikh said. “It was scary at first, and doubly scary when doctors sometimes don’t feel they can say, ‘Hey, I’m scared too,’ or ‘By the way, I really don’t know what I’m doing.’ So, we’d be trying to reassure the patients when the information was coming to us in fragments.”

But he also believes that the pandemic has afforded hospitalists the opportunity to be the clinical detectives they were trained to be, sifting through clues. “I had to think more and really pay attention clinically in a much different way. You could say it was exciting and scary at the same time,” he said.
 

A human fix in the hospital

Dr. Pribula agreed that the pandemic has been both a difficult experience and a rewarding one. “I think of the people I first admitted. If they had shown up even a month later, would they still be with us?” He believes that his group and his field are going to get to a place where they have solid treatment plans for how to provide optimal care and how to protect providers from exposure.

One of the first COVID-19 patients in Fargo had dementia and was very distressed. “She had no idea why nobody was visiting or why we wouldn’t let her out of her room,” Dr. Pribula said. “Instead of reaching for sedatives, one of our nurses went into the room and talked with her, prayed a rosary, and played two hands of cards with her and didn’t have to sedate her. That’s what people need when they’re alone and scared. It wasn’t a medical fix but a human fix.”
 

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

Christopher Pribula, MD, a hospitalist at Sanford Broadway Medical Center in Fargo, N.D., didn’t anticipate becoming his hospital’s resident expert on COVID-19. Having just returned from vacation in March, he agreed to cover for a colleague on what would become the special care unit. “When our hospital medicine group decided that it would be the COVID unit, I just ran with it,” he said. Dr. Pribula spent the next 18 days doing 8- to 14-hour shifts and learning as much as he could as the hospital – and the nation – wrestled with the pandemic.

“Because I was the first hospitalist, along with our infectious disease specialist, Dr. Avish Nagpal, to really engage with the virus, people came to me with their questions,” Dr. Pribula said. Working to establish protocols for the care of COVID-19 patients involved a lot of planning, from nursing protocols to discharge planning.

Dr. Pribula was part of the hospital’s incident command structure, thought about how the system could scale up for a potential surge, and worked with the North Dakota Medical Association to reach out to outlying medical centers on safety and infection control. He even drew on his prior work experience as a medical technologist doing negative-pressure containment in a cell-processing facility to help create the hospital’s negative-pressure unit in an old ICU.

“We did a lot of communication from the start. To a certain extent we were making it up as we went along, but we sat down and huddled as a team every day at 9 and 4,” he explained. “We started out with observation and retrospective research, and learned piece by piece. But that’s how science works.”

Hospitalists across the country have played leading roles in their hospitals’ and health systems’ response to the pandemic, and not just because they are on the front lines providing patient care. Their job as doctors who work full-time in the hospital makes them natural leaders in improving clinical quality and hospital administrative protocols as well as studying the latest information and educating their colleagues. Responding to the pandemic has required lots of planning, careful attention to schedules and assignments and staff stress, and working with other departments in the hospital and groups in the community, including public health authorities.
 

Where is hospital treatment for COVID-19 at today?

As knowledge has grown, Dr. Pribula said, COVID-19 treatment in the hospital has come to incorporate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral; dexamethasone, a common steroid medication; and convalescent plasma, blood products from people who have recovered from the illness. “We went from no steroids to giving steroids. We went from putting patients on ventilators to avoid acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) initially to now working to avoid intubation at all costs,” he said.

“What we found is that we need to pressure-support these patients. We do proning and CPAP while we let the lungs heal. By the time they arrive at the hospital, more often than not they’re on the backside of the viral load. But now we’re dealing with the body’s inflammatory response.”

Navneet Attri, MD, a hospitalist at Sutter Santa Rosa Regional Hospital in Santa Rosa, Calif., 50 miles north of San Francisco, experienced fears and uncertainties working at a hospital that treated early COVID patients from the Grand Princess cruise ship. Early on, she wrote a post describing her experience for The Hospitalist Leader, the Society of Hospital Medicine’s blog page.

Dr. Attri said she has gone through the gamut of emotions while caring for COVID-19 patients, addressing their fears and trying to support family members who aren’t allowed to enter the hospital to be at their loved one’s side. Sometimes, patient after patient with COVID-19 becomes almost too much. But seeing a lot of them in the intervening 6 months has increased her confidence level.

Understanding of how the disease is spread has continued to evolve, with a recent return to focusing on airborne transmission, she said. Frontline workers need N95 masks and eye shields, even if all of that PPE feels like a burden. Dr. Attri said she hardly notices the PPE anymore. “Putting it on is just a habit.”

She sits on Sonoma County’s COVID-19 surge planning group, which has representatives from the three local hospitals, the public health department, and other community agencies. “I report back to my hospitalist group about the situation in the community. Because our facilities were well prepared, our hospitals have not been overwhelmed,” she said.
 

The importance of teamwork

Sunil Shah, MD, a hospitalist with Northwell Health’s Southside Hospital in Bay Shore, N.Y., is part of the massive hospital medicine team, including reassigned specialists and volunteers from across the country, deployed at Northwell hospitals in Greater New York City and Long Island during the COVID-19 surge. Northwell probably has cared for more COVID-19 patients than any other health system in the country, and at the height of the surge the intensity of hospital care was like nothing he’s ever seen. But he also expressed gratitude that doctors from other parts of the country were willing to come and help out.

Southside Hospital went almost overnight from a 200-bed acute facility to a full, 350-bed, regional COVID-19–only hospital. “On busy days, our entire hospital was like a floating ICU,” he said. “You’d hear ‘rapid response’ or ‘code blue’ over the intercom every few seconds. Normally we’d have a designated rapid response person for the day, but with COVID, everybody stepped in to help – whoever was closest,” he said.

Majid Sheikh, MD, a hospitalist at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, also became a go-to COVID-19 expert for his group. “I didn’t specifically volunteer, but my partner and I had the first cases, and the leadership group was happy to have us there,” he explained.

“One interesting thing I learned was the concept of the ‘happy’ hypoxemic patient, who is having a significant drop in oxygen saturation without developing any obvious signs of respiratory distress,” he said. “We’d be checking the accuracy of the reading and trying to figure out if it was real.” Emory was also one of the leaders in studying anticoagulant treatments for COVID-19 patients.

“Six months later I would say we’re definitely getting better outcomes on the floor, and our COVID patients aren’t landing in the ICU as easily,” Dr. Sheikh said. “It was scary at first, and doubly scary when doctors sometimes don’t feel they can say, ‘Hey, I’m scared too,’ or ‘By the way, I really don’t know what I’m doing.’ So, we’d be trying to reassure the patients when the information was coming to us in fragments.”

But he also believes that the pandemic has afforded hospitalists the opportunity to be the clinical detectives they were trained to be, sifting through clues. “I had to think more and really pay attention clinically in a much different way. You could say it was exciting and scary at the same time,” he said.
 

A human fix in the hospital

Dr. Pribula agreed that the pandemic has been both a difficult experience and a rewarding one. “I think of the people I first admitted. If they had shown up even a month later, would they still be with us?” He believes that his group and his field are going to get to a place where they have solid treatment plans for how to provide optimal care and how to protect providers from exposure.

One of the first COVID-19 patients in Fargo had dementia and was very distressed. “She had no idea why nobody was visiting or why we wouldn’t let her out of her room,” Dr. Pribula said. “Instead of reaching for sedatives, one of our nurses went into the room and talked with her, prayed a rosary, and played two hands of cards with her and didn’t have to sedate her. That’s what people need when they’re alone and scared. It wasn’t a medical fix but a human fix.”
 

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

Like most medical students, Kaitlyn Thomas’s education was abruptly interrupted by the pandemic. Her school, an osteopathic medicine institution in the Midwest, followed guidelines issued by the American Association of Medical Colleges in March, shifting lectures online and suspending activities in which students interacted with patients. But even as Ms. Thomas’s learning opportunities dwindled for the sake of safety, the costs kept piling up.

Instead of going home to live with her family, she stayed in her apartment near school – and kept paying rent – so she could be nearby for the two licensing exams she was scheduled to take 3 months later. Both tests were canceled 9 days before she was scheduled to take them, one without any notification. This meant she had to travel to two different testing sites in two different states. All told, she said, the whole thing cost her around $2,000.

Ms. Thomas’s experience isn’t rare. Across the country, medical students find themselves paying substantial costs for a medical education now greatly altered by the pandemic. Despite restrictions on time spent in hospitals, hands-on learning, social events, and access to libraries, gyms, study spaces, and instructors, the price of tuition hasn’t dropped but has remained the same or has even risen.

In response, students have become vocal about the return on their pricey investment. “Am I just going to end up doing most of my year online, and what does that look like for my future patients?” Ms. Thomas asked. “It really doesn’t feel like a time to be limiting education.”

Medical schools and administrators are scrambling to find creative solutions for safely educating students. No matter what those solutions may be, experts say, the pandemic has drawn fresh attention to enduring questions about how the cost of medical education compares to its value. Although many are frustrated, some see the potential for COVID to open new opportunities for lasting innovation. At the very least, the pandemic has sparked conversations about what matters most in terms of producing qualified physicians.

“While this is a challenging time, we will get through it, and we will continue to educate doctors, and we will get them through to practice,” says Robert Cain, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. Many in the midst of training still have one lingering question: Is the price future doctors are now paying still worth it?
 

COVID’s “hidden costs” for students

Tom is a third-year student at an allopathic medicine institution in the Caribbean. He asked not to be fully identified here, owing to concern about possible backlash. In March, Tom was doing clinical rotations in New York City when his training was put on hold. He returned home to Connecticut and resumed working 60-80 hours a week as a paramedic. As much as 75% of that income went to pay for the New York City apartment he was no longer living in – an apartment that cost more than $2,000 a month – and for student loans that suddenly came due when his enrollment status changed.

Tom has been able to take some online courses through his school. But he still doesn’t know whether state licensing boards will accept them, how residency programs will view them, or whether he will eventually have to retake those online classes in person. At the end of September, he was allowed to return to the hospital but was relocated to Chicago and was forced to move on short notice.

Like many students, Tom has worried that the pandemic may prevent him from acquiring crucial elements for his residency applications, things like letters of recommendation or key experiences. That could delay his next stage of training, which would mean lost future income, increasing student loan interest, and lost work experience. “This could also mean the difference between getting a residency and being able to practice medicine and not being able to practice my intended specialty,” he said. “This is the real hidden cost we may have to deal with.”

International medical students hoping to practice in the United States face additional costs. Michelle Warncke earned her bachelor’s degree in America but went to the United Kingdom for her master’s and her medical degree, which she completed in 2019. She then moved to North Carolina with her husband and saved money to take the exams she needed for residency in the states. But her scheduled Step 2 CS exam was canceled because of the pandemic. Now, like hundreds or even thousands of other students, she said she is unable to apply for residency, even as her student loans collect interest. An active Facebook group of international medical graduates includes about 1,500 people with comparable dilemmas.

The path to becoming a physician carries a well-known price tag, one that is already quite high. Now, for many, that price is substantially increasing. “The only way I can actually keep my medical credentials up to date and passable, to be able to ever get a shot at a residency in the following years,” she said, “is to move to another country and work for less pay, pay for a visa, pay for my exams, pay for my language test, and wait and hope that I might be able to as an older graduate then be able to apply for residency.”
 

Scaling back the price of med school?

Questions about the economics of medical education aren’t new, says David Asch, MD, MBA, an internal medicine physician and executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But the changes forced by COVID could lead to innovations that may finally better balance the financial scales.

Such innovations are necessary, many say, given how medical education costs have skyrocketed over the past half century. In the 1960s, 4 years of medical school cost about $40,000 in today’s dollars, Dr. Asch and colleagues wrote in a 2020 analysis, which they conducted before the pandemic began. By 2018, the price of a medical education in the United States had ballooned to about $300,000. About 75% of students were taking out loans. Upon graduating, the average debt was $200,000.

Medical school is expensive for many tangible reasons, Dr. Asch said. Schools must pay for curriculum, faculty, technology, textbooks, lab materials, facilities, administrators, and more. But policy changes could decrease those costs.

He says one idea would be for medical schools to join forces and give students access to the same basic lectures in the early years, delivered online by top-notch instructors. Students could then participate in on-campus programs that might only require 3 years to complete instead of 4. By demonstrating what can be done via online platforms, he said, the pandemic might pave the way to permanent changes that could reduce costs.

“I’m not trying to pick on biochemistry professors and medical schools, but how many do we need in the country?” Dr. Asch asked. “We’re all watching the same episode of Seinfeld. Why can’t we all watch the same episode of the Krebs cycle?” If all 190 or so medical schools in the United States shared such preclinical courses, he says, each would require a fraction of the current cost to produce. “We could save 99.5% of the cost. So why don’t we do that?”
 

Pandemic as opportunity

Although the price of medical education has yet to decrease, schools are working to leverage the pandemic to provide increased educational value.

This generation of physicians will not only have to cope with the fallout of this pandemic, they will be the ones responsible for confronting the next pandemic as well, says Donald Brady, MD, senior associate dean for health sciences education at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “They will be the leaders in the future who will better be able to know how to handle it [a pandemic] because they were able to watch it and be part of it safely in the current circumstance.”

As much as possible, Vanderbilt is using the pandemic as an opportunity. As soon as it became clear that students couldn’t be involved in certain hands-on training, instructors developed a course about pandemics that included lectures on ethics, global health, systemic racism, and other topics. It also included experiential components of pandemic management, such as opportunities to work with patients through telehealth.

Students say they feel that they are getting less for their money and that they are paying for experiences that are no longer available, such as hands-on patient contact and community events. However, Dr. Brady said, schools have had to account for new expenses, including various now-required technologies and transitioning to courses online.

Some challenges can’t be solved with money alone. Medical schools across the country are working together to ensure that they are still adequately preparing students. Vanderbilt participates in an AAMC group that meets regularly and is also one of 37 institutions involved in an American Medical Association Consortium (AACOM). These groups discuss challenges, strategies, and opportunities for optimizing medical education during the pandemic.

Some institutions have come up with creative solutions. Ohio University’s Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, in Athens, Ohio, in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Health, launched a 4-week rotation for third-year students that focuses on public health. Harvard Medical School, Boston, was one of several schools that allowed students to graduate early in the spring. “We’re constantly talking to our colleagues and friends,” Dr. Brady said. “We learn from each other. There’s a lot of sharing going on.”

Other organizations are also working to make sure students ultimately get what they are paying for: a high-quality education. As soon as the pandemic began, the AACOM organized four working groups to address how schools could better use technology to deliver curricula and how students could participate in public health efforts, among other topics. “For the students, the part they don’t see and can’t really be aware of is all the things that happen behind the scenes,” Mr. Cain said. “People were working really hard to make sure that their education was still delivered, and delivered in a way that was going to assure a good product at the end.”

Ultimately, that product will be held to a rigid standard, said Geoffrey Young, the AAMC’s senior director for student affairs and programs. Medical schools must still meet standards of competency set by the liaison committee on medical education. Mr. Young says that even now those standards remain rigorous enough to ensure that medical students are learning what they need to know. “The core elements for competency may be slightly altered to address the realities that we’re experiencing because of COVID, but the core tenants of competencies will not change,” he said.

Even as conversations continue about what a medical education is worth, the pandemic is drawing new attention to the profession. No signs suggest that the value of tuition or a shift to more virtual offerings are scaring students away. Applications for medical schools were up 17% for the fall of 2021.

Brady expects the surge in interest to continue. “The increased focus and emphasis on public health, the increased focus and emphasis on health equity, the increased focus on the need for a more diverse physician workforce, the interest in basic science research around viruses, the interest in COVID itself – there are a lot of different elements that are setting us up for a potential boom in applications to medical school,” he said.

Beyond increasing interest, the pandemic may also finally force a reckoning on the disconnection between how schools think about costs and how students think about value, Dr. Asch said. “When students say: ‘I’m not getting as much from this,’ they’re saying, ‘you should price this according to its lower value.’ And when the medical schools are saying: ‘Oh, but it’s costing us so much more,’ they’re talking about pricing according to the cost. It’s like one group is speaking Latin and the other group is speaking Greek.” Perhaps, he said, COVID-related changes will finally get them speaking the same language.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Like most medical students, Kaitlyn Thomas’s education was abruptly interrupted by the pandemic. Her school, an osteopathic medicine institution in the Midwest, followed guidelines issued by the American Association of Medical Colleges in March, shifting lectures online and suspending activities in which students interacted with patients. But even as Ms. Thomas’s learning opportunities dwindled for the sake of safety, the costs kept piling up.

Instead of going home to live with her family, she stayed in her apartment near school – and kept paying rent – so she could be nearby for the two licensing exams she was scheduled to take 3 months later. Both tests were canceled 9 days before she was scheduled to take them, one without any notification. This meant she had to travel to two different testing sites in two different states. All told, she said, the whole thing cost her around $2,000.

Ms. Thomas’s experience isn’t rare. Across the country, medical students find themselves paying substantial costs for a medical education now greatly altered by the pandemic. Despite restrictions on time spent in hospitals, hands-on learning, social events, and access to libraries, gyms, study spaces, and instructors, the price of tuition hasn’t dropped but has remained the same or has even risen.

In response, students have become vocal about the return on their pricey investment. “Am I just going to end up doing most of my year online, and what does that look like for my future patients?” Ms. Thomas asked. “It really doesn’t feel like a time to be limiting education.”

Medical schools and administrators are scrambling to find creative solutions for safely educating students. No matter what those solutions may be, experts say, the pandemic has drawn fresh attention to enduring questions about how the cost of medical education compares to its value. Although many are frustrated, some see the potential for COVID to open new opportunities for lasting innovation. At the very least, the pandemic has sparked conversations about what matters most in terms of producing qualified physicians.

“While this is a challenging time, we will get through it, and we will continue to educate doctors, and we will get them through to practice,” says Robert Cain, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. Many in the midst of training still have one lingering question: Is the price future doctors are now paying still worth it?
 

COVID’s “hidden costs” for students

Tom is a third-year student at an allopathic medicine institution in the Caribbean. He asked not to be fully identified here, owing to concern about possible backlash. In March, Tom was doing clinical rotations in New York City when his training was put on hold. He returned home to Connecticut and resumed working 60-80 hours a week as a paramedic. As much as 75% of that income went to pay for the New York City apartment he was no longer living in – an apartment that cost more than $2,000 a month – and for student loans that suddenly came due when his enrollment status changed.

Tom has been able to take some online courses through his school. But he still doesn’t know whether state licensing boards will accept them, how residency programs will view them, or whether he will eventually have to retake those online classes in person. At the end of September, he was allowed to return to the hospital but was relocated to Chicago and was forced to move on short notice.

Like many students, Tom has worried that the pandemic may prevent him from acquiring crucial elements for his residency applications, things like letters of recommendation or key experiences. That could delay his next stage of training, which would mean lost future income, increasing student loan interest, and lost work experience. “This could also mean the difference between getting a residency and being able to practice medicine and not being able to practice my intended specialty,” he said. “This is the real hidden cost we may have to deal with.”

International medical students hoping to practice in the United States face additional costs. Michelle Warncke earned her bachelor’s degree in America but went to the United Kingdom for her master’s and her medical degree, which she completed in 2019. She then moved to North Carolina with her husband and saved money to take the exams she needed for residency in the states. But her scheduled Step 2 CS exam was canceled because of the pandemic. Now, like hundreds or even thousands of other students, she said she is unable to apply for residency, even as her student loans collect interest. An active Facebook group of international medical graduates includes about 1,500 people with comparable dilemmas.

The path to becoming a physician carries a well-known price tag, one that is already quite high. Now, for many, that price is substantially increasing. “The only way I can actually keep my medical credentials up to date and passable, to be able to ever get a shot at a residency in the following years,” she said, “is to move to another country and work for less pay, pay for a visa, pay for my exams, pay for my language test, and wait and hope that I might be able to as an older graduate then be able to apply for residency.”
 

Scaling back the price of med school?

Questions about the economics of medical education aren’t new, says David Asch, MD, MBA, an internal medicine physician and executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But the changes forced by COVID could lead to innovations that may finally better balance the financial scales.

Such innovations are necessary, many say, given how medical education costs have skyrocketed over the past half century. In the 1960s, 4 years of medical school cost about $40,000 in today’s dollars, Dr. Asch and colleagues wrote in a 2020 analysis, which they conducted before the pandemic began. By 2018, the price of a medical education in the United States had ballooned to about $300,000. About 75% of students were taking out loans. Upon graduating, the average debt was $200,000.

Medical school is expensive for many tangible reasons, Dr. Asch said. Schools must pay for curriculum, faculty, technology, textbooks, lab materials, facilities, administrators, and more. But policy changes could decrease those costs.

He says one idea would be for medical schools to join forces and give students access to the same basic lectures in the early years, delivered online by top-notch instructors. Students could then participate in on-campus programs that might only require 3 years to complete instead of 4. By demonstrating what can be done via online platforms, he said, the pandemic might pave the way to permanent changes that could reduce costs.

“I’m not trying to pick on biochemistry professors and medical schools, but how many do we need in the country?” Dr. Asch asked. “We’re all watching the same episode of Seinfeld. Why can’t we all watch the same episode of the Krebs cycle?” If all 190 or so medical schools in the United States shared such preclinical courses, he says, each would require a fraction of the current cost to produce. “We could save 99.5% of the cost. So why don’t we do that?”
 

Pandemic as opportunity

Although the price of medical education has yet to decrease, schools are working to leverage the pandemic to provide increased educational value.

This generation of physicians will not only have to cope with the fallout of this pandemic, they will be the ones responsible for confronting the next pandemic as well, says Donald Brady, MD, senior associate dean for health sciences education at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “They will be the leaders in the future who will better be able to know how to handle it [a pandemic] because they were able to watch it and be part of it safely in the current circumstance.”

As much as possible, Vanderbilt is using the pandemic as an opportunity. As soon as it became clear that students couldn’t be involved in certain hands-on training, instructors developed a course about pandemics that included lectures on ethics, global health, systemic racism, and other topics. It also included experiential components of pandemic management, such as opportunities to work with patients through telehealth.

Students say they feel that they are getting less for their money and that they are paying for experiences that are no longer available, such as hands-on patient contact and community events. However, Dr. Brady said, schools have had to account for new expenses, including various now-required technologies and transitioning to courses online.

Some challenges can’t be solved with money alone. Medical schools across the country are working together to ensure that they are still adequately preparing students. Vanderbilt participates in an AAMC group that meets regularly and is also one of 37 institutions involved in an American Medical Association Consortium (AACOM). These groups discuss challenges, strategies, and opportunities for optimizing medical education during the pandemic.

Some institutions have come up with creative solutions. Ohio University’s Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, in Athens, Ohio, in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Health, launched a 4-week rotation for third-year students that focuses on public health. Harvard Medical School, Boston, was one of several schools that allowed students to graduate early in the spring. “We’re constantly talking to our colleagues and friends,” Dr. Brady said. “We learn from each other. There’s a lot of sharing going on.”

Other organizations are also working to make sure students ultimately get what they are paying for: a high-quality education. As soon as the pandemic began, the AACOM organized four working groups to address how schools could better use technology to deliver curricula and how students could participate in public health efforts, among other topics. “For the students, the part they don’t see and can’t really be aware of is all the things that happen behind the scenes,” Mr. Cain said. “People were working really hard to make sure that their education was still delivered, and delivered in a way that was going to assure a good product at the end.”

Ultimately, that product will be held to a rigid standard, said Geoffrey Young, the AAMC’s senior director for student affairs and programs. Medical schools must still meet standards of competency set by the liaison committee on medical education. Mr. Young says that even now those standards remain rigorous enough to ensure that medical students are learning what they need to know. “The core elements for competency may be slightly altered to address the realities that we’re experiencing because of COVID, but the core tenants of competencies will not change,” he said.

Even as conversations continue about what a medical education is worth, the pandemic is drawing new attention to the profession. No signs suggest that the value of tuition or a shift to more virtual offerings are scaring students away. Applications for medical schools were up 17% for the fall of 2021.

Brady expects the surge in interest to continue. “The increased focus and emphasis on public health, the increased focus and emphasis on health equity, the increased focus on the need for a more diverse physician workforce, the interest in basic science research around viruses, the interest in COVID itself – there are a lot of different elements that are setting us up for a potential boom in applications to medical school,” he said.

Beyond increasing interest, the pandemic may also finally force a reckoning on the disconnection between how schools think about costs and how students think about value, Dr. Asch said. “When students say: ‘I’m not getting as much from this,’ they’re saying, ‘you should price this according to its lower value.’ And when the medical schools are saying: ‘Oh, but it’s costing us so much more,’ they’re talking about pricing according to the cost. It’s like one group is speaking Latin and the other group is speaking Greek.” Perhaps, he said, COVID-related changes will finally get them speaking the same language.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Like most medical students, Kaitlyn Thomas’s education was abruptly interrupted by the pandemic. Her school, an osteopathic medicine institution in the Midwest, followed guidelines issued by the American Association of Medical Colleges in March, shifting lectures online and suspending activities in which students interacted with patients. But even as Ms. Thomas’s learning opportunities dwindled for the sake of safety, the costs kept piling up.

Instead of going home to live with her family, she stayed in her apartment near school – and kept paying rent – so she could be nearby for the two licensing exams she was scheduled to take 3 months later. Both tests were canceled 9 days before she was scheduled to take them, one without any notification. This meant she had to travel to two different testing sites in two different states. All told, she said, the whole thing cost her around $2,000.

Ms. Thomas’s experience isn’t rare. Across the country, medical students find themselves paying substantial costs for a medical education now greatly altered by the pandemic. Despite restrictions on time spent in hospitals, hands-on learning, social events, and access to libraries, gyms, study spaces, and instructors, the price of tuition hasn’t dropped but has remained the same or has even risen.

In response, students have become vocal about the return on their pricey investment. “Am I just going to end up doing most of my year online, and what does that look like for my future patients?” Ms. Thomas asked. “It really doesn’t feel like a time to be limiting education.”

Medical schools and administrators are scrambling to find creative solutions for safely educating students. No matter what those solutions may be, experts say, the pandemic has drawn fresh attention to enduring questions about how the cost of medical education compares to its value. Although many are frustrated, some see the potential for COVID to open new opportunities for lasting innovation. At the very least, the pandemic has sparked conversations about what matters most in terms of producing qualified physicians.

“While this is a challenging time, we will get through it, and we will continue to educate doctors, and we will get them through to practice,” says Robert Cain, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. Many in the midst of training still have one lingering question: Is the price future doctors are now paying still worth it?
 

COVID’s “hidden costs” for students

Tom is a third-year student at an allopathic medicine institution in the Caribbean. He asked not to be fully identified here, owing to concern about possible backlash. In March, Tom was doing clinical rotations in New York City when his training was put on hold. He returned home to Connecticut and resumed working 60-80 hours a week as a paramedic. As much as 75% of that income went to pay for the New York City apartment he was no longer living in – an apartment that cost more than $2,000 a month – and for student loans that suddenly came due when his enrollment status changed.

Tom has been able to take some online courses through his school. But he still doesn’t know whether state licensing boards will accept them, how residency programs will view them, or whether he will eventually have to retake those online classes in person. At the end of September, he was allowed to return to the hospital but was relocated to Chicago and was forced to move on short notice.

Like many students, Tom has worried that the pandemic may prevent him from acquiring crucial elements for his residency applications, things like letters of recommendation or key experiences. That could delay his next stage of training, which would mean lost future income, increasing student loan interest, and lost work experience. “This could also mean the difference between getting a residency and being able to practice medicine and not being able to practice my intended specialty,” he said. “This is the real hidden cost we may have to deal with.”

International medical students hoping to practice in the United States face additional costs. Michelle Warncke earned her bachelor’s degree in America but went to the United Kingdom for her master’s and her medical degree, which she completed in 2019. She then moved to North Carolina with her husband and saved money to take the exams she needed for residency in the states. But her scheduled Step 2 CS exam was canceled because of the pandemic. Now, like hundreds or even thousands of other students, she said she is unable to apply for residency, even as her student loans collect interest. An active Facebook group of international medical graduates includes about 1,500 people with comparable dilemmas.

The path to becoming a physician carries a well-known price tag, one that is already quite high. Now, for many, that price is substantially increasing. “The only way I can actually keep my medical credentials up to date and passable, to be able to ever get a shot at a residency in the following years,” she said, “is to move to another country and work for less pay, pay for a visa, pay for my exams, pay for my language test, and wait and hope that I might be able to as an older graduate then be able to apply for residency.”
 

Scaling back the price of med school?

Questions about the economics of medical education aren’t new, says David Asch, MD, MBA, an internal medicine physician and executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But the changes forced by COVID could lead to innovations that may finally better balance the financial scales.

Such innovations are necessary, many say, given how medical education costs have skyrocketed over the past half century. In the 1960s, 4 years of medical school cost about $40,000 in today’s dollars, Dr. Asch and colleagues wrote in a 2020 analysis, which they conducted before the pandemic began. By 2018, the price of a medical education in the United States had ballooned to about $300,000. About 75% of students were taking out loans. Upon graduating, the average debt was $200,000.

Medical school is expensive for many tangible reasons, Dr. Asch said. Schools must pay for curriculum, faculty, technology, textbooks, lab materials, facilities, administrators, and more. But policy changes could decrease those costs.

He says one idea would be for medical schools to join forces and give students access to the same basic lectures in the early years, delivered online by top-notch instructors. Students could then participate in on-campus programs that might only require 3 years to complete instead of 4. By demonstrating what can be done via online platforms, he said, the pandemic might pave the way to permanent changes that could reduce costs.

“I’m not trying to pick on biochemistry professors and medical schools, but how many do we need in the country?” Dr. Asch asked. “We’re all watching the same episode of Seinfeld. Why can’t we all watch the same episode of the Krebs cycle?” If all 190 or so medical schools in the United States shared such preclinical courses, he says, each would require a fraction of the current cost to produce. “We could save 99.5% of the cost. So why don’t we do that?”
 

Pandemic as opportunity

Although the price of medical education has yet to decrease, schools are working to leverage the pandemic to provide increased educational value.

This generation of physicians will not only have to cope with the fallout of this pandemic, they will be the ones responsible for confronting the next pandemic as well, says Donald Brady, MD, senior associate dean for health sciences education at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “They will be the leaders in the future who will better be able to know how to handle it [a pandemic] because they were able to watch it and be part of it safely in the current circumstance.”

As much as possible, Vanderbilt is using the pandemic as an opportunity. As soon as it became clear that students couldn’t be involved in certain hands-on training, instructors developed a course about pandemics that included lectures on ethics, global health, systemic racism, and other topics. It also included experiential components of pandemic management, such as opportunities to work with patients through telehealth.

Students say they feel that they are getting less for their money and that they are paying for experiences that are no longer available, such as hands-on patient contact and community events. However, Dr. Brady said, schools have had to account for new expenses, including various now-required technologies and transitioning to courses online.

Some challenges can’t be solved with money alone. Medical schools across the country are working together to ensure that they are still adequately preparing students. Vanderbilt participates in an AAMC group that meets regularly and is also one of 37 institutions involved in an American Medical Association Consortium (AACOM). These groups discuss challenges, strategies, and opportunities for optimizing medical education during the pandemic.

Some institutions have come up with creative solutions. Ohio University’s Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, in Athens, Ohio, in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Health, launched a 4-week rotation for third-year students that focuses on public health. Harvard Medical School, Boston, was one of several schools that allowed students to graduate early in the spring. “We’re constantly talking to our colleagues and friends,” Dr. Brady said. “We learn from each other. There’s a lot of sharing going on.”

Other organizations are also working to make sure students ultimately get what they are paying for: a high-quality education. As soon as the pandemic began, the AACOM organized four working groups to address how schools could better use technology to deliver curricula and how students could participate in public health efforts, among other topics. “For the students, the part they don’t see and can’t really be aware of is all the things that happen behind the scenes,” Mr. Cain said. “People were working really hard to make sure that their education was still delivered, and delivered in a way that was going to assure a good product at the end.”

Ultimately, that product will be held to a rigid standard, said Geoffrey Young, the AAMC’s senior director for student affairs and programs. Medical schools must still meet standards of competency set by the liaison committee on medical education. Mr. Young says that even now those standards remain rigorous enough to ensure that medical students are learning what they need to know. “The core elements for competency may be slightly altered to address the realities that we’re experiencing because of COVID, but the core tenants of competencies will not change,” he said.

Even as conversations continue about what a medical education is worth, the pandemic is drawing new attention to the profession. No signs suggest that the value of tuition or a shift to more virtual offerings are scaring students away. Applications for medical schools were up 17% for the fall of 2021.

Brady expects the surge in interest to continue. “The increased focus and emphasis on public health, the increased focus and emphasis on health equity, the increased focus on the need for a more diverse physician workforce, the interest in basic science research around viruses, the interest in COVID itself – there are a lot of different elements that are setting us up for a potential boom in applications to medical school,” he said.

Beyond increasing interest, the pandemic may also finally force a reckoning on the disconnection between how schools think about costs and how students think about value, Dr. Asch said. “When students say: ‘I’m not getting as much from this,’ they’re saying, ‘you should price this according to its lower value.’ And when the medical schools are saying: ‘Oh, but it’s costing us so much more,’ they’re talking about pricing according to the cost. It’s like one group is speaking Latin and the other group is speaking Greek.” Perhaps, he said, COVID-related changes will finally get them speaking the same language.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.