COVID-19 Updates

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

This is getting pretty ridiculous. The number of well-done, evidence-based trials of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 showing minimal-to-no benefit is increasing. There are still studies that show benefit in certain cases, but many of them are small-scale or even anecdotal.

How long is this going to go on? If the evidence supporting its use were to be put through the standard Food and Drug Administration approval panels it wouldn’t have a chance.

Yet, because it’s become a political football (like masks), science and rational research are tossed out the window. At the end of July we were all treated to videos of Dr. Stella Immanuel claiming the drug is a cure. Dr. Immanuel may have medical credentials, but she also supports beliefs that space aliens and the Illuminati are involved in running governments, and that multiple gynecologic disorders are caused by sexual relations with demons and witches during dreams.

Even so, her hydroxychloroquine statements were given heavy play during a news cycle, then endorsed by the president and his supporters, all with very little immediate background provided for other claims she’s made in the past.

Medicine is a science. Politics shouldn’t be. While hydroxychloroquine may have its uses for other disorders, at this point COVID-19 doesn’t appear to be one of them. Continuing to give it to sick people, despite the growing evidence against it, violates the “do-no-harm” tenet of our field.

There was no shame in trying it and failing. This is the process through which all treatments are tested. If they work (such as with penicillin, for example) that’s wonderful. If they fail (such as with countless Alzheimer’s trials) we learn what doesn’t work and move on.

But to keep claiming success where there isn’t any moves beyond science and into things that whiff of a hoax, such as 1989’s cold fusion or recurrent claims of capturing Bigfoot.

With an implacable enemy such as COVID-19 at the door, money and effort need to be focused on finding what works, not on putting stale milk back in the refrigerator and hoping it comes out fresh.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. The number of well-done, evidence-based trials of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 showing minimal-to-no benefit is increasing. There are still studies that show benefit in certain cases, but many of them are small-scale or even anecdotal.

How long is this going to go on? If the evidence supporting its use were to be put through the standard Food and Drug Administration approval panels it wouldn’t have a chance.

Yet, because it’s become a political football (like masks), science and rational research are tossed out the window. At the end of July we were all treated to videos of Dr. Stella Immanuel claiming the drug is a cure. Dr. Immanuel may have medical credentials, but she also supports beliefs that space aliens and the Illuminati are involved in running governments, and that multiple gynecologic disorders are caused by sexual relations with demons and witches during dreams.

Even so, her hydroxychloroquine statements were given heavy play during a news cycle, then endorsed by the president and his supporters, all with very little immediate background provided for other claims she’s made in the past.

Medicine is a science. Politics shouldn’t be. While hydroxychloroquine may have its uses for other disorders, at this point COVID-19 doesn’t appear to be one of them. Continuing to give it to sick people, despite the growing evidence against it, violates the “do-no-harm” tenet of our field.

There was no shame in trying it and failing. This is the process through which all treatments are tested. If they work (such as with penicillin, for example) that’s wonderful. If they fail (such as with countless Alzheimer’s trials) we learn what doesn’t work and move on.

But to keep claiming success where there isn’t any moves beyond science and into things that whiff of a hoax, such as 1989’s cold fusion or recurrent claims of capturing Bigfoot.

With an implacable enemy such as COVID-19 at the door, money and effort need to be focused on finding what works, not on putting stale milk back in the refrigerator and hoping it comes out fresh.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. The number of well-done, evidence-based trials of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 showing minimal-to-no benefit is increasing. There are still studies that show benefit in certain cases, but many of them are small-scale or even anecdotal.

How long is this going to go on? If the evidence supporting its use were to be put through the standard Food and Drug Administration approval panels it wouldn’t have a chance.

Yet, because it’s become a political football (like masks), science and rational research are tossed out the window. At the end of July we were all treated to videos of Dr. Stella Immanuel claiming the drug is a cure. Dr. Immanuel may have medical credentials, but she also supports beliefs that space aliens and the Illuminati are involved in running governments, and that multiple gynecologic disorders are caused by sexual relations with demons and witches during dreams.

Even so, her hydroxychloroquine statements were given heavy play during a news cycle, then endorsed by the president and his supporters, all with very little immediate background provided for other claims she’s made in the past.

Medicine is a science. Politics shouldn’t be. While hydroxychloroquine may have its uses for other disorders, at this point COVID-19 doesn’t appear to be one of them. Continuing to give it to sick people, despite the growing evidence against it, violates the “do-no-harm” tenet of our field.

There was no shame in trying it and failing. This is the process through which all treatments are tested. If they work (such as with penicillin, for example) that’s wonderful. If they fail (such as with countless Alzheimer’s trials) we learn what doesn’t work and move on.

But to keep claiming success where there isn’t any moves beyond science and into things that whiff of a hoax, such as 1989’s cold fusion or recurrent claims of capturing Bigfoot.

With an implacable enemy such as COVID-19 at the door, money and effort need to be focused on finding what works, not on putting stale milk back in the refrigerator and hoping it comes out fresh.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

These are unusually stressful days for everyone, especially our patients. We are all experiencing a turbulent mix of emotions as we try to cope with a confluence of threats to both our lives and to life as we know it. Peace of mind has become so elusive due to the relentless overlapping waves of fear, sadness, anger, and uncertainty. We are all grieving in a different way, but our psychiatric patients are suffering the most.

Fear. It only takes 1 traumatic event to trigger posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Yet over the past few months, we have been afflicted by 4 jarring traumatic events, individually and as a society. Just a few months ago, it would have been impossible to imagine the conflux of 4 concurrent seismic threats to our well-being. A toxic political zeitgeist was the backdrop, which we bemoaned and tried to compartmentalize, despite the corrosive political environment shrouding the country. Then the deadly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suddenly arrived, imposing draconian health-preserving measures that impacted every individual’s daily life in countless detrimental ways. Fear prevailed as we all sheltered at home, stopped commuting to work, canceled all trips, distanced ourselves from our friends and relatives, and watched depressing and anxiety-provoking television and read online news throughout our waking hours. Hoarding food and household supplies became endemic due to fear about survival.

Sadness. The agonizing prospect of a national financial necrosis followed the threat of serious illness or death. The economy came to a screeching halt, hemorrhaging millions of jobs. Unemployed parents stayed home with their morose children whose schools were shuttered, leaving them deprived of socializing with their friends. The government hurried with financial chemotherapy, printing trillions of dollars to prevent economic collapse, to avert potential poverty and hunger for many. The fear of the pandemic became coupled with sadness over the loss of livelihoods and grief for the loss of liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, or even small pleasures.

Anger. Then a tsunami of anger was generated by the brutal and sadistic death of a black man in police custody. This was a spark that ignited a massive amount of previously dormant racial tension dating back to the dark days of slavery. Peaceful protests were marred by destructive riots. The explosive fury was perhaps intensified by the protestors having been being locked up for weeks and having to wear masks, both of which were symbolic of being held down and “unable to breathe,” like the murdered Mr. George Floyd.

An epidemic of destroying statues followed. Heavy statues that appeared invincible for decades were dismantled from their plinth in a matter of minutes, signifying extreme frustration with the social injustice that remains despite the transformational laws of the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964. Suddenly—like falling dominoes—statues, flags, names of military bases, and previously venerated monuments were removed, changed, vandalized, or threatened with destruction. The founders of the republic were also maligned because they were slave owners 2 centuries ago. The paradigm shift spawned by the rage over racial inequality was disconcerting and dramatic. The anger and rampage spawned a sense that a tipping point in our society has been reached.

Uncertainty. The confluence of political instability, a deadly pandemic, economic collapse, and racial tensions were like the 4 horsemen of mass PTSD. The result was an agonizing uncertainty about the impact of these changes, and whether a sense of normalcy will ever return. It became apparent to all of us that our social structure has changed forever across multiple fundamental domains: public health, social, political, and financial. The wait for a vaccine for COVID-19 seems interminable, and racial healing and harmony seems elusive. Economic recovery may be possible, but political detoxification appears unlikely. The fate of police departments, condemned because of the deplorable and illegal acts of a few, and the safety of citizens, usually guaranteed by law and order, seem uncertain. Like COVID-19, angst has rapidly spread across the population.

The price our patients pay

The ingredients of a large-scale societal PTSD, similar to what probably happens during a world war, are now in place. Even resilient individuals may buckle during quadruple ordeals such as this one. So imagine what is happening to our patients, rendered fragile and vulnerable to threats by their pre-existing psychiatric illness. They all pay a heavy price. Patients with anxiety disorders will decompensate, with more panic attacks. Patients burdened by depression will worsen, with more hopelessness, despair, and suicidal ideation due to anxiety and loneliness. Patients with bipolar disorder will become more labile and irritable, and their comorbid anxiety will intensify. Patients with schizophrenia will become more paranoid, depressed, and anxious. Patients with autism will become more agitated and aggressive because their cherished daily routines are disrupted. Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder will react to their germaphobia by washing their hands and cleaning everything around them even more frequently, and they (along with everyone else) will become hoarders.

Hope and healing

As psychiatrists, we are determined to transcend our own stress, rise above it all, and attend to the pervasive sadness, grief, anger, and uncertainty all around us, but especially among our patients, for whom the anguish of a psychiatric disorder is further compounded by 4 additional ordeals. This is our moment of truth as healers of our patients’ souls, because they look to us to provide them with hope to help navigate these trying times into full health. And we psychiatrists, along with fellow mental health professionals, are up to this unprecedented challenge.

These are unusually stressful days for everyone, especially our patients. We are all experiencing a turbulent mix of emotions as we try to cope with a confluence of threats to both our lives and to life as we know it. Peace of mind has become so elusive due to the relentless overlapping waves of fear, sadness, anger, and uncertainty. We are all grieving in a different way, but our psychiatric patients are suffering the most.

Fear. It only takes 1 traumatic event to trigger posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Yet over the past few months, we have been afflicted by 4 jarring traumatic events, individually and as a society. Just a few months ago, it would have been impossible to imagine the conflux of 4 concurrent seismic threats to our well-being. A toxic political zeitgeist was the backdrop, which we bemoaned and tried to compartmentalize, despite the corrosive political environment shrouding the country. Then the deadly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suddenly arrived, imposing draconian health-preserving measures that impacted every individual’s daily life in countless detrimental ways. Fear prevailed as we all sheltered at home, stopped commuting to work, canceled all trips, distanced ourselves from our friends and relatives, and watched depressing and anxiety-provoking television and read online news throughout our waking hours. Hoarding food and household supplies became endemic due to fear about survival.

Sadness. The agonizing prospect of a national financial necrosis followed the threat of serious illness or death. The economy came to a screeching halt, hemorrhaging millions of jobs. Unemployed parents stayed home with their morose children whose schools were shuttered, leaving them deprived of socializing with their friends. The government hurried with financial chemotherapy, printing trillions of dollars to prevent economic collapse, to avert potential poverty and hunger for many. The fear of the pandemic became coupled with sadness over the loss of livelihoods and grief for the loss of liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, or even small pleasures.

Anger. Then a tsunami of anger was generated by the brutal and sadistic death of a black man in police custody. This was a spark that ignited a massive amount of previously dormant racial tension dating back to the dark days of slavery. Peaceful protests were marred by destructive riots. The explosive fury was perhaps intensified by the protestors having been being locked up for weeks and having to wear masks, both of which were symbolic of being held down and “unable to breathe,” like the murdered Mr. George Floyd.

An epidemic of destroying statues followed. Heavy statues that appeared invincible for decades were dismantled from their plinth in a matter of minutes, signifying extreme frustration with the social injustice that remains despite the transformational laws of the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964. Suddenly—like falling dominoes—statues, flags, names of military bases, and previously venerated monuments were removed, changed, vandalized, or threatened with destruction. The founders of the republic were also maligned because they were slave owners 2 centuries ago. The paradigm shift spawned by the rage over racial inequality was disconcerting and dramatic. The anger and rampage spawned a sense that a tipping point in our society has been reached.

Uncertainty. The confluence of political instability, a deadly pandemic, economic collapse, and racial tensions were like the 4 horsemen of mass PTSD. The result was an agonizing uncertainty about the impact of these changes, and whether a sense of normalcy will ever return. It became apparent to all of us that our social structure has changed forever across multiple fundamental domains: public health, social, political, and financial. The wait for a vaccine for COVID-19 seems interminable, and racial healing and harmony seems elusive. Economic recovery may be possible, but political detoxification appears unlikely. The fate of police departments, condemned because of the deplorable and illegal acts of a few, and the safety of citizens, usually guaranteed by law and order, seem uncertain. Like COVID-19, angst has rapidly spread across the population.

The price our patients pay

The ingredients of a large-scale societal PTSD, similar to what probably happens during a world war, are now in place. Even resilient individuals may buckle during quadruple ordeals such as this one. So imagine what is happening to our patients, rendered fragile and vulnerable to threats by their pre-existing psychiatric illness. They all pay a heavy price. Patients with anxiety disorders will decompensate, with more panic attacks. Patients burdened by depression will worsen, with more hopelessness, despair, and suicidal ideation due to anxiety and loneliness. Patients with bipolar disorder will become more labile and irritable, and their comorbid anxiety will intensify. Patients with schizophrenia will become more paranoid, depressed, and anxious. Patients with autism will become more agitated and aggressive because their cherished daily routines are disrupted. Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder will react to their germaphobia by washing their hands and cleaning everything around them even more frequently, and they (along with everyone else) will become hoarders.

Hope and healing

As psychiatrists, we are determined to transcend our own stress, rise above it all, and attend to the pervasive sadness, grief, anger, and uncertainty all around us, but especially among our patients, for whom the anguish of a psychiatric disorder is further compounded by 4 additional ordeals. This is our moment of truth as healers of our patients’ souls, because they look to us to provide them with hope to help navigate these trying times into full health. And we psychiatrists, along with fellow mental health professionals, are up to this unprecedented challenge.

These are unusually stressful days for everyone, especially our patients. We are all experiencing a turbulent mix of emotions as we try to cope with a confluence of threats to both our lives and to life as we know it. Peace of mind has become so elusive due to the relentless overlapping waves of fear, sadness, anger, and uncertainty. We are all grieving in a different way, but our psychiatric patients are suffering the most.

Fear. It only takes 1 traumatic event to trigger posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Yet over the past few months, we have been afflicted by 4 jarring traumatic events, individually and as a society. Just a few months ago, it would have been impossible to imagine the conflux of 4 concurrent seismic threats to our well-being. A toxic political zeitgeist was the backdrop, which we bemoaned and tried to compartmentalize, despite the corrosive political environment shrouding the country. Then the deadly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suddenly arrived, imposing draconian health-preserving measures that impacted every individual’s daily life in countless detrimental ways. Fear prevailed as we all sheltered at home, stopped commuting to work, canceled all trips, distanced ourselves from our friends and relatives, and watched depressing and anxiety-provoking television and read online news throughout our waking hours. Hoarding food and household supplies became endemic due to fear about survival.

Sadness. The agonizing prospect of a national financial necrosis followed the threat of serious illness or death. The economy came to a screeching halt, hemorrhaging millions of jobs. Unemployed parents stayed home with their morose children whose schools were shuttered, leaving them deprived of socializing with their friends. The government hurried with financial chemotherapy, printing trillions of dollars to prevent economic collapse, to avert potential poverty and hunger for many. The fear of the pandemic became coupled with sadness over the loss of livelihoods and grief for the loss of liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, or even small pleasures.

Anger. Then a tsunami of anger was generated by the brutal and sadistic death of a black man in police custody. This was a spark that ignited a massive amount of previously dormant racial tension dating back to the dark days of slavery. Peaceful protests were marred by destructive riots. The explosive fury was perhaps intensified by the protestors having been being locked up for weeks and having to wear masks, both of which were symbolic of being held down and “unable to breathe,” like the murdered Mr. George Floyd.

An epidemic of destroying statues followed. Heavy statues that appeared invincible for decades were dismantled from their plinth in a matter of minutes, signifying extreme frustration with the social injustice that remains despite the transformational laws of the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964. Suddenly—like falling dominoes—statues, flags, names of military bases, and previously venerated monuments were removed, changed, vandalized, or threatened with destruction. The founders of the republic were also maligned because they were slave owners 2 centuries ago. The paradigm shift spawned by the rage over racial inequality was disconcerting and dramatic. The anger and rampage spawned a sense that a tipping point in our society has been reached.

Uncertainty. The confluence of political instability, a deadly pandemic, economic collapse, and racial tensions were like the 4 horsemen of mass PTSD. The result was an agonizing uncertainty about the impact of these changes, and whether a sense of normalcy will ever return. It became apparent to all of us that our social structure has changed forever across multiple fundamental domains: public health, social, political, and financial. The wait for a vaccine for COVID-19 seems interminable, and racial healing and harmony seems elusive. Economic recovery may be possible, but political detoxification appears unlikely. The fate of police departments, condemned because of the deplorable and illegal acts of a few, and the safety of citizens, usually guaranteed by law and order, seem uncertain. Like COVID-19, angst has rapidly spread across the population.

The price our patients pay

The ingredients of a large-scale societal PTSD, similar to what probably happens during a world war, are now in place. Even resilient individuals may buckle during quadruple ordeals such as this one. So imagine what is happening to our patients, rendered fragile and vulnerable to threats by their pre-existing psychiatric illness. They all pay a heavy price. Patients with anxiety disorders will decompensate, with more panic attacks. Patients burdened by depression will worsen, with more hopelessness, despair, and suicidal ideation due to anxiety and loneliness. Patients with bipolar disorder will become more labile and irritable, and their comorbid anxiety will intensify. Patients with schizophrenia will become more paranoid, depressed, and anxious. Patients with autism will become more agitated and aggressive because their cherished daily routines are disrupted. Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder will react to their germaphobia by washing their hands and cleaning everything around them even more frequently, and they (along with everyone else) will become hoarders.

Hope and healing

As psychiatrists, we are determined to transcend our own stress, rise above it all, and attend to the pervasive sadness, grief, anger, and uncertainty all around us, but especially among our patients, for whom the anguish of a psychiatric disorder is further compounded by 4 additional ordeals. This is our moment of truth as healers of our patients’ souls, because they look to us to provide them with hope to help navigate these trying times into full health. And we psychiatrists, along with fellow mental health professionals, are up to this unprecedented challenge.

Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.

Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.

In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.

The following findings from this study are striking:

• 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
• Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
• None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
• Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.

These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
 

As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.

These investigators have identified a damning lack of images of COVID-19–associated skin manifestations in patients with darker skin. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.

Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.

Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.

Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.

In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.

The following findings from this study are striking:

• 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
• Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
• None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
• Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.

These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
 

As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.

These investigators have identified a damning lack of images of COVID-19–associated skin manifestations in patients with darker skin. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.

Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.

Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.

Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.

In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.

The following findings from this study are striking:

• 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
• Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
• None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
• Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.

These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
 

As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.

These investigators have identified a damning lack of images of COVID-19–associated skin manifestations in patients with darker skin. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.

Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.

Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.

Under the radar

Phynart Studio/Getty Images

Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.

Forget the deep cleaning

There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.

Managing the inevitable

Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.

Patience

Unfortunately, the pandemic has exposed some of our weaknesses as a nation. We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.

Under the radar

Phynart Studio/Getty Images

Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.

Forget the deep cleaning

There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.

Managing the inevitable

Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.

Patience

Unfortunately, the pandemic has exposed some of our weaknesses as a nation. We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.

Under the radar

Phynart Studio/Getty Images

Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.

Forget the deep cleaning

There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.

Managing the inevitable

Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.

Patience

Unfortunately, the pandemic has exposed some of our weaknesses as a nation. We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Hospitalized cancer patients have a high risk of nosocomial COVID-19 that is associated with increased mortality, so these patients should be treated in COVID-free zones, according to researchers.

In an observational study of patients with COVID-19 and cancer, 19% of patients had COVID-19 acquired during a non-COVID-related hospital stay, and 81% had community-acquired COVID-19.

At a median follow-up of 23 days, the overall mortality rate was 28%. However, the all-cause mortality rate in patients with nosocomial COVID-19 was more than double that of patients with community-acquired COVID-19, at 47% and 23%, respectively.

Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the University of Montreal, reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

“This is the first report that describes a high rate of hospital-acquired COVID-19 in patients with cancer, at a rate of 19%,” Dr. Elkrief said. “This was associated with high mortality in both univariate and multivariate analyses.”

The study included 250 adults and 3 children with COVID-19 and cancer who were identified between March 3 and May 23, 2020. They ranged in age from 4 to 95 years, but the median age was 73 years.

All patients had either laboratory-confirmed (95%) or presumed COVID-19 (5%) and invasive cancer. The most common cancer types were similar to those seen in the general population. Lung and breast cancer were the most common, followed by lymphoma, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. Most patients were on active anticancer therapy, most often chemotherapy.

Most patients (n = 236) were residents of Quebec, but 17 patients were residents of British Columbia.

“It is important to note that Quebec was one of the most heavily affected areas in North America at the time of the study,” Dr. Elkrief said.
 

Outcomes by group

There were 206 patients (81%) who had community-acquired COVID-19 and 47 (19%) who had nosocomial COVID-19. The two groups were similar with respect to sex, performance status, and cancer stage. A small trend toward more patients on active therapy was seen in the nosocomial group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

The median overall survival was 27 days in the nosocomial group and 71 days in the community-acquired group (hazard ratio, 2.2; P = .002).

A multivariate analysis showed that nosocomial infection was “strongly and independently associated with death,” Dr. Elkrief said. “Other risk factors for poor prognosis included age, poor [performance] status, and advanced stage of cancer.”

There were no significant differences between the hospital-acquired and community-acquired groups for other outcomes, including oxygen requirements (43% and 47%, respectively), ICU admission (13% and 11%), need for mechanical ventilation (6% and 5%), or length of stay (median, 9.5 days and 8.5 days).

The low rate of ICU admission, considering the mortality rate of 28%, “could reflect that patients with cancer are less likely to be admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Elkrief noted.
 

Applying the findings to practice

The findings reinforce the importance of adherence to stringent infection control guidelines to protect vulnerable patients, such as those with cancer, Dr. Elkrief said.

In ambulatory settings, this means decreasing in-person visits through increased use of teleconsultations, and for those who need to be seen in person, screening for symptoms or use of polymerase chain reaction testing should be used when resources are available, she said.

“Similar principles apply to chemotherapy treatment units,” Dr. Elkrief said. She added that staff must avoid cross-contamination between COVID and COVID-free zones, and that “dedicated personnel and equipment should be maintained and separate between these two zones.

“Adequate protective personal equipment and strict hand hygiene protocols are also of utmost importance,” Dr. Elkrief said. “The threat of COVID-19 is not behind us, and so we continue to enforce these strategies to protect our patients.”

Session moderator Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, raised the question of whether the high nosocomial infection and death rate in this study was related to patients having more severe disease because of underlying comorbidities.

Dr. Elkrief explained that the overall mortality rate was indeed higher than the 13% reported in other studies, and it may reflect an overrepresentation of hospitalized or more severely ill patients in the cohort.

However, the investigators made every effort to include all patients with both cancer and COVID-19 by using systematic screening of inpatient and outpatients lists and registries.

Further, the multivariate analysis included both inpatients and outpatients and adjusted for known negative prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes. These included increasing age, poor performance status, and different comorbidities.

The finding that nosocomial infection was an independent predictor of death “pushed us to look at nosocomial infection as a new independent risk factor,” Dr. Elkrief said.

Dr. Elkrief reported grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. D’Souza did not report any disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Elkrief A et al. AACR: COVID and Cancer, Abstract S12-01.

Hospitalized cancer patients have a high risk of nosocomial COVID-19 that is associated with increased mortality, so these patients should be treated in COVID-free zones, according to researchers.

In an observational study of patients with COVID-19 and cancer, 19% of patients had COVID-19 acquired during a non-COVID-related hospital stay, and 81% had community-acquired COVID-19.

At a median follow-up of 23 days, the overall mortality rate was 28%. However, the all-cause mortality rate in patients with nosocomial COVID-19 was more than double that of patients with community-acquired COVID-19, at 47% and 23%, respectively.

Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the University of Montreal, reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

“This is the first report that describes a high rate of hospital-acquired COVID-19 in patients with cancer, at a rate of 19%,” Dr. Elkrief said. “This was associated with high mortality in both univariate and multivariate analyses.”

The study included 250 adults and 3 children with COVID-19 and cancer who were identified between March 3 and May 23, 2020. They ranged in age from 4 to 95 years, but the median age was 73 years.

All patients had either laboratory-confirmed (95%) or presumed COVID-19 (5%) and invasive cancer. The most common cancer types were similar to those seen in the general population. Lung and breast cancer were the most common, followed by lymphoma, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. Most patients were on active anticancer therapy, most often chemotherapy.

Most patients (n = 236) were residents of Quebec, but 17 patients were residents of British Columbia.

“It is important to note that Quebec was one of the most heavily affected areas in North America at the time of the study,” Dr. Elkrief said.
 

Outcomes by group

There were 206 patients (81%) who had community-acquired COVID-19 and 47 (19%) who had nosocomial COVID-19. The two groups were similar with respect to sex, performance status, and cancer stage. A small trend toward more patients on active therapy was seen in the nosocomial group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

The median overall survival was 27 days in the nosocomial group and 71 days in the community-acquired group (hazard ratio, 2.2; P = .002).

A multivariate analysis showed that nosocomial infection was “strongly and independently associated with death,” Dr. Elkrief said. “Other risk factors for poor prognosis included age, poor [performance] status, and advanced stage of cancer.”

There were no significant differences between the hospital-acquired and community-acquired groups for other outcomes, including oxygen requirements (43% and 47%, respectively), ICU admission (13% and 11%), need for mechanical ventilation (6% and 5%), or length of stay (median, 9.5 days and 8.5 days).

The low rate of ICU admission, considering the mortality rate of 28%, “could reflect that patients with cancer are less likely to be admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Elkrief noted.
 

Applying the findings to practice

The findings reinforce the importance of adherence to stringent infection control guidelines to protect vulnerable patients, such as those with cancer, Dr. Elkrief said.

In ambulatory settings, this means decreasing in-person visits through increased use of teleconsultations, and for those who need to be seen in person, screening for symptoms or use of polymerase chain reaction testing should be used when resources are available, she said.

“Similar principles apply to chemotherapy treatment units,” Dr. Elkrief said. She added that staff must avoid cross-contamination between COVID and COVID-free zones, and that “dedicated personnel and equipment should be maintained and separate between these two zones.

“Adequate protective personal equipment and strict hand hygiene protocols are also of utmost importance,” Dr. Elkrief said. “The threat of COVID-19 is not behind us, and so we continue to enforce these strategies to protect our patients.”

Session moderator Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, raised the question of whether the high nosocomial infection and death rate in this study was related to patients having more severe disease because of underlying comorbidities.

Dr. Elkrief explained that the overall mortality rate was indeed higher than the 13% reported in other studies, and it may reflect an overrepresentation of hospitalized or more severely ill patients in the cohort.

However, the investigators made every effort to include all patients with both cancer and COVID-19 by using systematic screening of inpatient and outpatients lists and registries.

Further, the multivariate analysis included both inpatients and outpatients and adjusted for known negative prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes. These included increasing age, poor performance status, and different comorbidities.

The finding that nosocomial infection was an independent predictor of death “pushed us to look at nosocomial infection as a new independent risk factor,” Dr. Elkrief said.

Dr. Elkrief reported grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. D’Souza did not report any disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Elkrief A et al. AACR: COVID and Cancer, Abstract S12-01.

Hospitalized cancer patients have a high risk of nosocomial COVID-19 that is associated with increased mortality, so these patients should be treated in COVID-free zones, according to researchers.

In an observational study of patients with COVID-19 and cancer, 19% of patients had COVID-19 acquired during a non-COVID-related hospital stay, and 81% had community-acquired COVID-19.

At a median follow-up of 23 days, the overall mortality rate was 28%. However, the all-cause mortality rate in patients with nosocomial COVID-19 was more than double that of patients with community-acquired COVID-19, at 47% and 23%, respectively.

Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the University of Montreal, reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

“This is the first report that describes a high rate of hospital-acquired COVID-19 in patients with cancer, at a rate of 19%,” Dr. Elkrief said. “This was associated with high mortality in both univariate and multivariate analyses.”

The study included 250 adults and 3 children with COVID-19 and cancer who were identified between March 3 and May 23, 2020. They ranged in age from 4 to 95 years, but the median age was 73 years.

All patients had either laboratory-confirmed (95%) or presumed COVID-19 (5%) and invasive cancer. The most common cancer types were similar to those seen in the general population. Lung and breast cancer were the most common, followed by lymphoma, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. Most patients were on active anticancer therapy, most often chemotherapy.

Most patients (n = 236) were residents of Quebec, but 17 patients were residents of British Columbia.

“It is important to note that Quebec was one of the most heavily affected areas in North America at the time of the study,” Dr. Elkrief said.
 

Outcomes by group

There were 206 patients (81%) who had community-acquired COVID-19 and 47 (19%) who had nosocomial COVID-19. The two groups were similar with respect to sex, performance status, and cancer stage. A small trend toward more patients on active therapy was seen in the nosocomial group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

The median overall survival was 27 days in the nosocomial group and 71 days in the community-acquired group (hazard ratio, 2.2; P = .002).

A multivariate analysis showed that nosocomial infection was “strongly and independently associated with death,” Dr. Elkrief said. “Other risk factors for poor prognosis included age, poor [performance] status, and advanced stage of cancer.”

There were no significant differences between the hospital-acquired and community-acquired groups for other outcomes, including oxygen requirements (43% and 47%, respectively), ICU admission (13% and 11%), need for mechanical ventilation (6% and 5%), or length of stay (median, 9.5 days and 8.5 days).

The low rate of ICU admission, considering the mortality rate of 28%, “could reflect that patients with cancer are less likely to be admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Elkrief noted.
 

Applying the findings to practice

The findings reinforce the importance of adherence to stringent infection control guidelines to protect vulnerable patients, such as those with cancer, Dr. Elkrief said.

In ambulatory settings, this means decreasing in-person visits through increased use of teleconsultations, and for those who need to be seen in person, screening for symptoms or use of polymerase chain reaction testing should be used when resources are available, she said.

“Similar principles apply to chemotherapy treatment units,” Dr. Elkrief said. She added that staff must avoid cross-contamination between COVID and COVID-free zones, and that “dedicated personnel and equipment should be maintained and separate between these two zones.

“Adequate protective personal equipment and strict hand hygiene protocols are also of utmost importance,” Dr. Elkrief said. “The threat of COVID-19 is not behind us, and so we continue to enforce these strategies to protect our patients.”

Session moderator Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, raised the question of whether the high nosocomial infection and death rate in this study was related to patients having more severe disease because of underlying comorbidities.

Dr. Elkrief explained that the overall mortality rate was indeed higher than the 13% reported in other studies, and it may reflect an overrepresentation of hospitalized or more severely ill patients in the cohort.

However, the investigators made every effort to include all patients with both cancer and COVID-19 by using systematic screening of inpatient and outpatients lists and registries.

Further, the multivariate analysis included both inpatients and outpatients and adjusted for known negative prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes. These included increasing age, poor performance status, and different comorbidities.

The finding that nosocomial infection was an independent predictor of death “pushed us to look at nosocomial infection as a new independent risk factor,” Dr. Elkrief said.

Dr. Elkrief reported grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. D’Souza did not report any disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Elkrief A et al. AACR: COVID and Cancer, Abstract S12-01.