COVID-19 Updates

Primary care practices are facing an existential threat, and they need government help now if they are to survive.

That was the main message at a teleconference held on May 20 to announce the results of a study showing that outpatient visits have rebounded across the United States. Having dropped 60% from their prepandemic level in early April, office visits are now significantly higher but are still 30% less than the baseline, on average, according to new data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia, a health information technology firm.

The outpatient visits study shows that most of the recovery was attributable to a rise in in-person visits, not telehealth encounters, which have plateaued. The rebound was more pronounced in some regions, like the South and Southwest, than in others, such as New England and the Mid-Atlantic.

Primary care practices are now experiencing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March, the study shows. While some other specialties have seen a greater drop-off in visits, speakers at the news conference drew reporters’ attention to the financial plight of primary care.

“Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.”

Health policy experts from the Commonwealth Fund and other organizations, she said, propose that the next round of federal economic stimulus funding include recovery resources dedicated to primary care practices, especially small practices and those in underserved areas. She said the money should be distributed immediately through Medicare and Medicaid in supplemental monthly payments.

Up to now, Ms. Abrams said, no money in any of the federal rescue packages has been specifically earmarked for primary care.

Close permanently?

Farzad Mostashari, MD, CEO of Aledade and former national coordinator for health information technology at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, agreed primary care needs immediate help.

Aledade’s customers for population health management services, he noted, are some of the most forward-looking and technologically savvy primary care groups. “Nevertheless, those practices are suffering,” Dr. Mostashari said. “Many of them are at risk financially. There has been a massive 60%-70% drop in face-to-face visits. About 40% of visits are telehealth, but the practices are still down 30% or more in visits. And they’re losing ancillary revenues from procedures and labs.”

The financial devastation of the pandemic is causing some physicians to question whether they will be able to stay in practice. A recent survey from the California Healthcare Foundation found that a third of California primary care doctors are worried their practices will be forced to close permanently because of the financial impact of COVID-19. Many doctors said their practices had furloughed or laid off staff or that they’d been forced to take pay cuts.

Similarly, a recent survey by the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative found that 13% of practices predicted closure within the next month and that 20% have already had temporary closures. Forty-two percent of the practices have laid off or furloughed staff, and 51% are uncertain about their financial future through June.
 

Primary care is essential

A pandemic-related reduction in the number of primary care physicians would exacerbate what many observers view as a nationwide shortage of primary care. Right now, the health care system badly needs all the primary care doctors it has, Ms. Abrams and Dr. Mostashari said.

Decades of research have shown that strong primary care is associated with better outcomes, lower per capita costs, and greater equity, Ms. Abrams noted. In addition, she said, dedicated support for primary care during the pandemic will help ensure that doctors meet the needs of patients with chronic diseases so they don’t have to be hospitalized.

Moreover, with proper support, primary care physicians can expand COVID-19 testing “so we can reopen the economy and perhaps prevent or contain the second wave of the virus,” she said.

Dr. Mostashari pointed out that primary care providers are on the front line of the pandemic. Although much attention has been rightfully given to those who treat COVID-19 patients in hospitals, he observed, “before those patients are admitted, they need to see primary care physicians. ... We have to maintain the primary care first line of defense. When the CDC says if you’re having symptoms, call your doctor, someone has to pick up the phone at the other end.”

In addition, he said, “there’s a hidden pandemic of untreated chronic conditions we should all be worried about. We know primary care is important because if you don’t do prevention, you’ll pay the price in heart attacks and strokes and kidney failure, and we’ve seen a dramatic decline in primary care services. In New York City, some people who have avoided necessary care have had bad outcomes, including in-home cardiac death.”

Dr. Mostashari also argued that the negative financial impact of COVID-19 could lead to a further consolidation of the industry as health systems and private equity investors take over failing practices. Past experience suggests that that would result in “a lack of choice, a lack of competition, and a lack of access” in many cases, he said.

The best long-term solution, he said, is to pay primary care physicians capitation instead of on a fee-for-service basis so that they’re not dependent on income from face-to-face visits.

In the short term, however, they need direct cash payments, Dr. Mostashari said. He called on Congress to allocate at least $15 billion to bolster the viability of primary care practices.
 

Telehealth levels off

One of the key findings of the outpatient visits study is that telehealth encounters, after soaring in the early days of the pandemic, have leveled off. After hitting a peak of 14% of all visits in mid-April, telehealth visits now make up about 12% of the total.

Study coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, an associate professor of health policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he’d expected the use of telehealth to continue rising. The fact that it hasn’t, he told reporters at the news conference, may be related to the different ways in which practices conduct virtual encounters.

“Some practices are using HIPAA-compliant [telehealth] platforms and training their patients on how to use those platforms,” Dr. Mehrotra noted. “Other clinics are mainly just phoning patients. You could envision those practices could easily revert back to in-person visits, because a phone call is going to be limited in many cases. Also, practices need to know whether payers will keep covering telehealth after the pandemic is over.”

The study shows that in-person visits, which declined more than total visits in March and early April, are now increasing at about the same rate as total visits. However, in-person visits are still down by more than 40%.

Asked whether financially vulnerable practices will be able to afford the safeguards that medical societies recommend to resume in-person visits, Dr. Mostashari pointed out that Medicare is now paying $28 to collect a COVID-19 specimen from a patient.

“Just the cost of changing PPE, plus disinfecting the room or setting up a separate room or testing facility: Those expenses are not included. We should have better accounting on what it actually costs to run a practice in the time of COVID. It’s not the same as their earlier operating costs.”

Dr. Mehrotra agreed. “You also can’t have 20 people in your waiting room or the throughput you had previously. So the number of patients you’ll be able to see will be lower because of appropriate restrictions.”

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

Primary care practices are facing an existential threat, and they need government help now if they are to survive.

That was the main message at a teleconference held on May 20 to announce the results of a study showing that outpatient visits have rebounded across the United States. Having dropped 60% from their prepandemic level in early April, office visits are now significantly higher but are still 30% less than the baseline, on average, according to new data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia, a health information technology firm.

The outpatient visits study shows that most of the recovery was attributable to a rise in in-person visits, not telehealth encounters, which have plateaued. The rebound was more pronounced in some regions, like the South and Southwest, than in others, such as New England and the Mid-Atlantic.

Primary care practices are now experiencing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March, the study shows. While some other specialties have seen a greater drop-off in visits, speakers at the news conference drew reporters’ attention to the financial plight of primary care.

“Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.”

Health policy experts from the Commonwealth Fund and other organizations, she said, propose that the next round of federal economic stimulus funding include recovery resources dedicated to primary care practices, especially small practices and those in underserved areas. She said the money should be distributed immediately through Medicare and Medicaid in supplemental monthly payments.

Up to now, Ms. Abrams said, no money in any of the federal rescue packages has been specifically earmarked for primary care.

Close permanently?

Farzad Mostashari, MD, CEO of Aledade and former national coordinator for health information technology at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, agreed primary care needs immediate help.

Aledade’s customers for population health management services, he noted, are some of the most forward-looking and technologically savvy primary care groups. “Nevertheless, those practices are suffering,” Dr. Mostashari said. “Many of them are at risk financially. There has been a massive 60%-70% drop in face-to-face visits. About 40% of visits are telehealth, but the practices are still down 30% or more in visits. And they’re losing ancillary revenues from procedures and labs.”

The financial devastation of the pandemic is causing some physicians to question whether they will be able to stay in practice. A recent survey from the California Healthcare Foundation found that a third of California primary care doctors are worried their practices will be forced to close permanently because of the financial impact of COVID-19. Many doctors said their practices had furloughed or laid off staff or that they’d been forced to take pay cuts.

Similarly, a recent survey by the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative found that 13% of practices predicted closure within the next month and that 20% have already had temporary closures. Forty-two percent of the practices have laid off or furloughed staff, and 51% are uncertain about their financial future through June.
 

Primary care is essential

A pandemic-related reduction in the number of primary care physicians would exacerbate what many observers view as a nationwide shortage of primary care. Right now, the health care system badly needs all the primary care doctors it has, Ms. Abrams and Dr. Mostashari said.

Decades of research have shown that strong primary care is associated with better outcomes, lower per capita costs, and greater equity, Ms. Abrams noted. In addition, she said, dedicated support for primary care during the pandemic will help ensure that doctors meet the needs of patients with chronic diseases so they don’t have to be hospitalized.

Moreover, with proper support, primary care physicians can expand COVID-19 testing “so we can reopen the economy and perhaps prevent or contain the second wave of the virus,” she said.

Dr. Mostashari pointed out that primary care providers are on the front line of the pandemic. Although much attention has been rightfully given to those who treat COVID-19 patients in hospitals, he observed, “before those patients are admitted, they need to see primary care physicians. ... We have to maintain the primary care first line of defense. When the CDC says if you’re having symptoms, call your doctor, someone has to pick up the phone at the other end.”

In addition, he said, “there’s a hidden pandemic of untreated chronic conditions we should all be worried about. We know primary care is important because if you don’t do prevention, you’ll pay the price in heart attacks and strokes and kidney failure, and we’ve seen a dramatic decline in primary care services. In New York City, some people who have avoided necessary care have had bad outcomes, including in-home cardiac death.”

Dr. Mostashari also argued that the negative financial impact of COVID-19 could lead to a further consolidation of the industry as health systems and private equity investors take over failing practices. Past experience suggests that that would result in “a lack of choice, a lack of competition, and a lack of access” in many cases, he said.

The best long-term solution, he said, is to pay primary care physicians capitation instead of on a fee-for-service basis so that they’re not dependent on income from face-to-face visits.

In the short term, however, they need direct cash payments, Dr. Mostashari said. He called on Congress to allocate at least $15 billion to bolster the viability of primary care practices.
 

Telehealth levels off

One of the key findings of the outpatient visits study is that telehealth encounters, after soaring in the early days of the pandemic, have leveled off. After hitting a peak of 14% of all visits in mid-April, telehealth visits now make up about 12% of the total.

Study coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, an associate professor of health policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he’d expected the use of telehealth to continue rising. The fact that it hasn’t, he told reporters at the news conference, may be related to the different ways in which practices conduct virtual encounters.

“Some practices are using HIPAA-compliant [telehealth] platforms and training their patients on how to use those platforms,” Dr. Mehrotra noted. “Other clinics are mainly just phoning patients. You could envision those practices could easily revert back to in-person visits, because a phone call is going to be limited in many cases. Also, practices need to know whether payers will keep covering telehealth after the pandemic is over.”

The study shows that in-person visits, which declined more than total visits in March and early April, are now increasing at about the same rate as total visits. However, in-person visits are still down by more than 40%.

Asked whether financially vulnerable practices will be able to afford the safeguards that medical societies recommend to resume in-person visits, Dr. Mostashari pointed out that Medicare is now paying $28 to collect a COVID-19 specimen from a patient.

“Just the cost of changing PPE, plus disinfecting the room or setting up a separate room or testing facility: Those expenses are not included. We should have better accounting on what it actually costs to run a practice in the time of COVID. It’s not the same as their earlier operating costs.”

Dr. Mehrotra agreed. “You also can’t have 20 people in your waiting room or the throughput you had previously. So the number of patients you’ll be able to see will be lower because of appropriate restrictions.”

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

Primary care practices are facing an existential threat, and they need government help now if they are to survive.

That was the main message at a teleconference held on May 20 to announce the results of a study showing that outpatient visits have rebounded across the United States. Having dropped 60% from their prepandemic level in early April, office visits are now significantly higher but are still 30% less than the baseline, on average, according to new data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia, a health information technology firm.

The outpatient visits study shows that most of the recovery was attributable to a rise in in-person visits, not telehealth encounters, which have plateaued. The rebound was more pronounced in some regions, like the South and Southwest, than in others, such as New England and the Mid-Atlantic.

Primary care practices are now experiencing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March, the study shows. While some other specialties have seen a greater drop-off in visits, speakers at the news conference drew reporters’ attention to the financial plight of primary care.

“Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.”

Health policy experts from the Commonwealth Fund and other organizations, she said, propose that the next round of federal economic stimulus funding include recovery resources dedicated to primary care practices, especially small practices and those in underserved areas. She said the money should be distributed immediately through Medicare and Medicaid in supplemental monthly payments.

Up to now, Ms. Abrams said, no money in any of the federal rescue packages has been specifically earmarked for primary care.

Close permanently?

Farzad Mostashari, MD, CEO of Aledade and former national coordinator for health information technology at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, agreed primary care needs immediate help.

Aledade’s customers for population health management services, he noted, are some of the most forward-looking and technologically savvy primary care groups. “Nevertheless, those practices are suffering,” Dr. Mostashari said. “Many of them are at risk financially. There has been a massive 60%-70% drop in face-to-face visits. About 40% of visits are telehealth, but the practices are still down 30% or more in visits. And they’re losing ancillary revenues from procedures and labs.”

The financial devastation of the pandemic is causing some physicians to question whether they will be able to stay in practice. A recent survey from the California Healthcare Foundation found that a third of California primary care doctors are worried their practices will be forced to close permanently because of the financial impact of COVID-19. Many doctors said their practices had furloughed or laid off staff or that they’d been forced to take pay cuts.

Similarly, a recent survey by the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative found that 13% of practices predicted closure within the next month and that 20% have already had temporary closures. Forty-two percent of the practices have laid off or furloughed staff, and 51% are uncertain about their financial future through June.
 

Primary care is essential

A pandemic-related reduction in the number of primary care physicians would exacerbate what many observers view as a nationwide shortage of primary care. Right now, the health care system badly needs all the primary care doctors it has, Ms. Abrams and Dr. Mostashari said.

Decades of research have shown that strong primary care is associated with better outcomes, lower per capita costs, and greater equity, Ms. Abrams noted. In addition, she said, dedicated support for primary care during the pandemic will help ensure that doctors meet the needs of patients with chronic diseases so they don’t have to be hospitalized.

Moreover, with proper support, primary care physicians can expand COVID-19 testing “so we can reopen the economy and perhaps prevent or contain the second wave of the virus,” she said.

Dr. Mostashari pointed out that primary care providers are on the front line of the pandemic. Although much attention has been rightfully given to those who treat COVID-19 patients in hospitals, he observed, “before those patients are admitted, they need to see primary care physicians. ... We have to maintain the primary care first line of defense. When the CDC says if you’re having symptoms, call your doctor, someone has to pick up the phone at the other end.”

In addition, he said, “there’s a hidden pandemic of untreated chronic conditions we should all be worried about. We know primary care is important because if you don’t do prevention, you’ll pay the price in heart attacks and strokes and kidney failure, and we’ve seen a dramatic decline in primary care services. In New York City, some people who have avoided necessary care have had bad outcomes, including in-home cardiac death.”

Dr. Mostashari also argued that the negative financial impact of COVID-19 could lead to a further consolidation of the industry as health systems and private equity investors take over failing practices. Past experience suggests that that would result in “a lack of choice, a lack of competition, and a lack of access” in many cases, he said.

The best long-term solution, he said, is to pay primary care physicians capitation instead of on a fee-for-service basis so that they’re not dependent on income from face-to-face visits.

In the short term, however, they need direct cash payments, Dr. Mostashari said. He called on Congress to allocate at least $15 billion to bolster the viability of primary care practices.
 

Telehealth levels off

One of the key findings of the outpatient visits study is that telehealth encounters, after soaring in the early days of the pandemic, have leveled off. After hitting a peak of 14% of all visits in mid-April, telehealth visits now make up about 12% of the total.

Study coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, an associate professor of health policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he’d expected the use of telehealth to continue rising. The fact that it hasn’t, he told reporters at the news conference, may be related to the different ways in which practices conduct virtual encounters.

“Some practices are using HIPAA-compliant [telehealth] platforms and training their patients on how to use those platforms,” Dr. Mehrotra noted. “Other clinics are mainly just phoning patients. You could envision those practices could easily revert back to in-person visits, because a phone call is going to be limited in many cases. Also, practices need to know whether payers will keep covering telehealth after the pandemic is over.”

The study shows that in-person visits, which declined more than total visits in March and early April, are now increasing at about the same rate as total visits. However, in-person visits are still down by more than 40%.

Asked whether financially vulnerable practices will be able to afford the safeguards that medical societies recommend to resume in-person visits, Dr. Mostashari pointed out that Medicare is now paying $28 to collect a COVID-19 specimen from a patient.

“Just the cost of changing PPE, plus disinfecting the room or setting up a separate room or testing facility: Those expenses are not included. We should have better accounting on what it actually costs to run a practice in the time of COVID. It’s not the same as their earlier operating costs.”

Dr. Mehrotra agreed. “You also can’t have 20 people in your waiting room or the throughput you had previously. So the number of patients you’ll be able to see will be lower because of appropriate restrictions.”

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

Family physicians had the lowest incentive bonuses of any specialty, according to the Medscape Family Medicine Physician Compensation Report 2020.

This year’s survey was the first to ask about bonuses, and it showed strong contrasts between specialties. Family physicians’ bonuses averaged $24,000, whereas orthopedists’ were four times higher, at $96,000.

Two-thirds of family physicians (67%), similar to physicians overall, reported that bonuses had no influence on the number of hours worked.

More than half of all physicians in the survey (56%) said they got such bonuses.

Family physicians’ pay was up $3,000 from last year, to $234,000, but still ranked near the bottom in comparison with other specialties. Only physicians in public health/preventive medicine and pediatrics made less, both at $232,000.

The top four specialties in pay were the same this year as they were last year and ranked in the same order: Orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000).

However, the compensation picture is changing for all physicians. This report reflects data gathered between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 crisis has reversed income gains for physicians overall. In a study from the Medical Group Management Association, researchers estimated that more than half of medical practices reported a drop in revenue by early April of 55% and a drop in patient volume of 60%.

Male family physicians continue to make more than their female colleagues, with this year’s difference at 26% ($257,000 vs. $205,000). Male specialists overall in the survey made 31% more than their female counterparts.

Few claims denied

A bright spot in compensation was that family physicians have among the lowest rates (14%) of claims that are denied or that need to be resubmitted. Plastic surgeons have twice that rate (28%) of rejected claims.

The survey authors noted, “One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but health care professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.”

Family physicians were in the middle of the pack as far as how much time was spent on paperwork. On average, they spent 15.9 hours a week on the tasks. Intensivists spent the most, at 19.1 hours each week, and ophthalmologists spent the least, at 9.8 hours per week.

Although 73% of physicians overall said they had no plans to stop accepting new and current Medicare and Medicaid patients, only 65% of family physicians answered that way. Seventeen percent said they would stop taking new Medicare patients, and 9% said they wouldn’t take new Medicaid patients; 15% had not made those decisions yet.

Rules and regulations are the biggest challenges

Asked about their biggest challenges, 29% of family physicians put “having so many rules and regulations” at the top. Next came working with an electronic health records system, followed by dealing with difficult patients.

The biggest reward, they said again this year, was “gratitude/relationships with patients” (34% ranked it at the top), followed by “knowing I’m making the world a better place” (25%), “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses” (18%), and “making good money at a job that I like” (10%).

Most family practices employ advanced practice providers (62% employed NPs, and 43% employed PAs). Fewer than one-third employed neither.

Of the family medicine physicians who did work with advanced practice providers in their offices, half (50%) said they improved profitability, 45% said they had no effect, and 5% said they decreased profitability.
 

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

Family physicians had the lowest incentive bonuses of any specialty, according to the Medscape Family Medicine Physician Compensation Report 2020.

This year’s survey was the first to ask about bonuses, and it showed strong contrasts between specialties. Family physicians’ bonuses averaged $24,000, whereas orthopedists’ were four times higher, at $96,000.

Two-thirds of family physicians (67%), similar to physicians overall, reported that bonuses had no influence on the number of hours worked.

More than half of all physicians in the survey (56%) said they got such bonuses.

Family physicians’ pay was up $3,000 from last year, to $234,000, but still ranked near the bottom in comparison with other specialties. Only physicians in public health/preventive medicine and pediatrics made less, both at $232,000.

The top four specialties in pay were the same this year as they were last year and ranked in the same order: Orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000).

However, the compensation picture is changing for all physicians. This report reflects data gathered between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 crisis has reversed income gains for physicians overall. In a study from the Medical Group Management Association, researchers estimated that more than half of medical practices reported a drop in revenue by early April of 55% and a drop in patient volume of 60%.

Male family physicians continue to make more than their female colleagues, with this year’s difference at 26% ($257,000 vs. $205,000). Male specialists overall in the survey made 31% more than their female counterparts.

Few claims denied

A bright spot in compensation was that family physicians have among the lowest rates (14%) of claims that are denied or that need to be resubmitted. Plastic surgeons have twice that rate (28%) of rejected claims.

The survey authors noted, “One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but health care professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.”

Family physicians were in the middle of the pack as far as how much time was spent on paperwork. On average, they spent 15.9 hours a week on the tasks. Intensivists spent the most, at 19.1 hours each week, and ophthalmologists spent the least, at 9.8 hours per week.

Although 73% of physicians overall said they had no plans to stop accepting new and current Medicare and Medicaid patients, only 65% of family physicians answered that way. Seventeen percent said they would stop taking new Medicare patients, and 9% said they wouldn’t take new Medicaid patients; 15% had not made those decisions yet.

Rules and regulations are the biggest challenges

Asked about their biggest challenges, 29% of family physicians put “having so many rules and regulations” at the top. Next came working with an electronic health records system, followed by dealing with difficult patients.

The biggest reward, they said again this year, was “gratitude/relationships with patients” (34% ranked it at the top), followed by “knowing I’m making the world a better place” (25%), “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses” (18%), and “making good money at a job that I like” (10%).

Most family practices employ advanced practice providers (62% employed NPs, and 43% employed PAs). Fewer than one-third employed neither.

Of the family medicine physicians who did work with advanced practice providers in their offices, half (50%) said they improved profitability, 45% said they had no effect, and 5% said they decreased profitability.
 

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

Family physicians had the lowest incentive bonuses of any specialty, according to the Medscape Family Medicine Physician Compensation Report 2020.

This year’s survey was the first to ask about bonuses, and it showed strong contrasts between specialties. Family physicians’ bonuses averaged $24,000, whereas orthopedists’ were four times higher, at $96,000.

Two-thirds of family physicians (67%), similar to physicians overall, reported that bonuses had no influence on the number of hours worked.

More than half of all physicians in the survey (56%) said they got such bonuses.

Family physicians’ pay was up $3,000 from last year, to $234,000, but still ranked near the bottom in comparison with other specialties. Only physicians in public health/preventive medicine and pediatrics made less, both at $232,000.

The top four specialties in pay were the same this year as they were last year and ranked in the same order: Orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000).

However, the compensation picture is changing for all physicians. This report reflects data gathered between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 crisis has reversed income gains for physicians overall. In a study from the Medical Group Management Association, researchers estimated that more than half of medical practices reported a drop in revenue by early April of 55% and a drop in patient volume of 60%.

Male family physicians continue to make more than their female colleagues, with this year’s difference at 26% ($257,000 vs. $205,000). Male specialists overall in the survey made 31% more than their female counterparts.

Few claims denied

A bright spot in compensation was that family physicians have among the lowest rates (14%) of claims that are denied or that need to be resubmitted. Plastic surgeons have twice that rate (28%) of rejected claims.

The survey authors noted, “One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but health care professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.”

Family physicians were in the middle of the pack as far as how much time was spent on paperwork. On average, they spent 15.9 hours a week on the tasks. Intensivists spent the most, at 19.1 hours each week, and ophthalmologists spent the least, at 9.8 hours per week.

Although 73% of physicians overall said they had no plans to stop accepting new and current Medicare and Medicaid patients, only 65% of family physicians answered that way. Seventeen percent said they would stop taking new Medicare patients, and 9% said they wouldn’t take new Medicaid patients; 15% had not made those decisions yet.

Rules and regulations are the biggest challenges

Asked about their biggest challenges, 29% of family physicians put “having so many rules and regulations” at the top. Next came working with an electronic health records system, followed by dealing with difficult patients.

The biggest reward, they said again this year, was “gratitude/relationships with patients” (34% ranked it at the top), followed by “knowing I’m making the world a better place” (25%), “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses” (18%), and “making good money at a job that I like” (10%).

Most family practices employ advanced practice providers (62% employed NPs, and 43% employed PAs). Fewer than one-third employed neither.

Of the family medicine physicians who did work with advanced practice providers in their offices, half (50%) said they improved profitability, 45% said they had no effect, and 5% said they decreased profitability.
 

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

Social isolation is associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event of more than 40%, and of all-cause mortality approaching 50%, new research suggests. “These results are especially important in the current times of social isolation during the coronavirus crisis,” Janine Gronewold, PhD, University Hospital in Essen, Germany, told a press briefing.

The mechanism by which social isolation may boost risk for stroke, MI, or death is not clear, but other research has shown that loneliness or lack of contact with close friends and family can affect physical health, said Dr. Gronewold.

The findings were presented at the sixth Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For this new study, researchers analyzed data from 4,139 participants, ranging in age from 45 to 75 years (mean 59.1 years), who were recruited into the large community-based Heinz Nixdorf Recall study. The randomly selected study group was representative of an industrial rural area of Germany, said Dr. Gronewold.

Study participants entered the study with no known cardiovascular disease and were followed for a mean of 13.4 years.
 

Social supports

Investigators collected information on three types of social support: instrumental (getting help with everyday activities such as buying food), emotional (provided with comfort), and financial (receiving monetary assistance when needed). They also looked at social integration (or social isolation) using an index with scores for marital status, number of contacts with family and friends, and membership in political, religious, community, sports, or professional associations.

Of the total, 501 participants reported a lack of instrumental support, 659 a lack of emotional support, and 907 a lack of financial support. A total of 309 lacked social integration, defined by the lowest level on the social integration index.

Participants were asked annually about new cardiovascular events, including stroke and MI. Over the follow-up period, there were 339 such events and 530 deaths.

After adjustment for age, sex, and social support, the analysis showed that social isolation was significantly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-2.14) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97).

The new research also showed that lack of financial support was significantly associated with increased risk for a cardiovascular event (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.67).
 

Direct effect

Additional models that also adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, health behaviors, depression, and socioeconomic factors, did not significantly change effect estimates.

“Social relationships protect us from cardiovascular events and mortality, not only via good mood, healthy behavior, and lower cardiovascular risk profile,” Dr. Gronewold said. “They seem to have a direct effect on these outcomes.”

Having strong social relationships is as important to cardiovascular health as classic protective factors such as controlling blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and maintaining a normal weight, said Dr. Gronewold.

The new results are worrying and are particularly important during the current COVID-19 pandemic, as social contact has been restricted in many areas, said Dr. Gronewold.

It is not yet clear why people who are socially isolated have such poor health outcomes, she added.

Dr. Gronewold has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Social isolation is associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event of more than 40%, and of all-cause mortality approaching 50%, new research suggests. “These results are especially important in the current times of social isolation during the coronavirus crisis,” Janine Gronewold, PhD, University Hospital in Essen, Germany, told a press briefing.

The mechanism by which social isolation may boost risk for stroke, MI, or death is not clear, but other research has shown that loneliness or lack of contact with close friends and family can affect physical health, said Dr. Gronewold.

The findings were presented at the sixth Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For this new study, researchers analyzed data from 4,139 participants, ranging in age from 45 to 75 years (mean 59.1 years), who were recruited into the large community-based Heinz Nixdorf Recall study. The randomly selected study group was representative of an industrial rural area of Germany, said Dr. Gronewold.

Study participants entered the study with no known cardiovascular disease and were followed for a mean of 13.4 years.
 

Social supports

Investigators collected information on three types of social support: instrumental (getting help with everyday activities such as buying food), emotional (provided with comfort), and financial (receiving monetary assistance when needed). They also looked at social integration (or social isolation) using an index with scores for marital status, number of contacts with family and friends, and membership in political, religious, community, sports, or professional associations.

Of the total, 501 participants reported a lack of instrumental support, 659 a lack of emotional support, and 907 a lack of financial support. A total of 309 lacked social integration, defined by the lowest level on the social integration index.

Participants were asked annually about new cardiovascular events, including stroke and MI. Over the follow-up period, there were 339 such events and 530 deaths.

After adjustment for age, sex, and social support, the analysis showed that social isolation was significantly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-2.14) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97).

The new research also showed that lack of financial support was significantly associated with increased risk for a cardiovascular event (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.67).
 

Direct effect

Additional models that also adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, health behaviors, depression, and socioeconomic factors, did not significantly change effect estimates.

“Social relationships protect us from cardiovascular events and mortality, not only via good mood, healthy behavior, and lower cardiovascular risk profile,” Dr. Gronewold said. “They seem to have a direct effect on these outcomes.”

Having strong social relationships is as important to cardiovascular health as classic protective factors such as controlling blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and maintaining a normal weight, said Dr. Gronewold.

The new results are worrying and are particularly important during the current COVID-19 pandemic, as social contact has been restricted in many areas, said Dr. Gronewold.

It is not yet clear why people who are socially isolated have such poor health outcomes, she added.

Dr. Gronewold has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Social isolation is associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event of more than 40%, and of all-cause mortality approaching 50%, new research suggests. “These results are especially important in the current times of social isolation during the coronavirus crisis,” Janine Gronewold, PhD, University Hospital in Essen, Germany, told a press briefing.

The mechanism by which social isolation may boost risk for stroke, MI, or death is not clear, but other research has shown that loneliness or lack of contact with close friends and family can affect physical health, said Dr. Gronewold.

The findings were presented at the sixth Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For this new study, researchers analyzed data from 4,139 participants, ranging in age from 45 to 75 years (mean 59.1 years), who were recruited into the large community-based Heinz Nixdorf Recall study. The randomly selected study group was representative of an industrial rural area of Germany, said Dr. Gronewold.

Study participants entered the study with no known cardiovascular disease and were followed for a mean of 13.4 years.
 

Social supports

Investigators collected information on three types of social support: instrumental (getting help with everyday activities such as buying food), emotional (provided with comfort), and financial (receiving monetary assistance when needed). They also looked at social integration (or social isolation) using an index with scores for marital status, number of contacts with family and friends, and membership in political, religious, community, sports, or professional associations.

Of the total, 501 participants reported a lack of instrumental support, 659 a lack of emotional support, and 907 a lack of financial support. A total of 309 lacked social integration, defined by the lowest level on the social integration index.

Participants were asked annually about new cardiovascular events, including stroke and MI. Over the follow-up period, there were 339 such events and 530 deaths.

After adjustment for age, sex, and social support, the analysis showed that social isolation was significantly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-2.14) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97).

The new research also showed that lack of financial support was significantly associated with increased risk for a cardiovascular event (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.67).
 

Direct effect

Additional models that also adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, health behaviors, depression, and socioeconomic factors, did not significantly change effect estimates.

“Social relationships protect us from cardiovascular events and mortality, not only via good mood, healthy behavior, and lower cardiovascular risk profile,” Dr. Gronewold said. “They seem to have a direct effect on these outcomes.”

Having strong social relationships is as important to cardiovascular health as classic protective factors such as controlling blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and maintaining a normal weight, said Dr. Gronewold.

The new results are worrying and are particularly important during the current COVID-19 pandemic, as social contact has been restricted in many areas, said Dr. Gronewold.

It is not yet clear why people who are socially isolated have such poor health outcomes, she added.

Dr. Gronewold has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.

Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.

“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
 

‘Inconclusive’ evidence

The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.

Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.

“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.

They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.

Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).

The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.

Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).

Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
 

Comorbidities and underlying conditions

The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.

“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.

No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
 

As good as it gets

“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.

Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.

After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.

Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).

“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.

“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.

“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.

“Let the science speak for itself”

Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”

Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”

Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.

He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”

Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”

Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”

The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.

Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.

“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
 

‘Inconclusive’ evidence

The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.

Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.

“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.

They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.

Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).

The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.

Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).

Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
 

Comorbidities and underlying conditions

The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.

“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.

No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
 

As good as it gets

“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.

Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.

After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.

Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).

“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.

“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.

“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.

“Let the science speak for itself”

Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”

Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”

Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.

He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”

Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”

Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”

The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID-19 and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.

Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization; compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.

“In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across six continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward,” study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zürich, said in an interview. The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
 

‘Inconclusive’ evidence

The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the “repurposing” of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been “largely inconclusive,” the authors wrote.

Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, “despite limited evidence” and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors noted.

“Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?” lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032; mean age 53.8 years; 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between Dec. 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.

They also collected data about demographics, underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.

Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1,868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3,783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3,016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6,221).

The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.

Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).

Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.
 

Comorbidities and underlying conditions

The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.

“In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses,” Dr. Ruschitzka explained.

No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.
 

As good as it gets

“We found no benefit in any of the four treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Dr. Mehra reported.

Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization, compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.

After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.

Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias, compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).

“We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region,” Dr. Mehra said.

“Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence, but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer,” Dr. Ruschitzka said.

“Although this was not a randomized, controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have,” he concluded.

“Let the science speak for itself”

Commenting on the study in an interview, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Sorbonne University, both in Paris, said that, although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is “nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results.”

Dr. Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial in The Lancet and was not involved with the study, said that “we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people.”

Also commenting on the study in an interview, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany, said that, “while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines and the Food and Drug Administration’s statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19,” said Dr. Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.

He added that, to his knowledge, there are “still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19.”

Dr. Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is “first do no harm” and “even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren’t, I don’t think it’s wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data.”

Dr. Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging the use of these agents “should review their decision based on today’s data and let the science speak for itself.”

The study was supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Dr. Mehra reported personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Dr. Ruschitzka was paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zürich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Dr. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Dr. Holtgrave declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Remdesivir trial data published

Weeks after topline remdesivir data appeared in the press, investigators published their full experience using the drug to treat COVID-19 patients. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed the drug reduced recovery time from 15 to 11 days, compared with placebo. Patients receiving oxygen seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir. “There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.” READ MORE.

FDA approves contraceptive gel

The Food and Drug Administration approved Phexxi (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) vaginal gel to prevent pregnancy in women of reproductive potential. It’s the first nonhormonal, on-demand, vaginal pH regulator contraceptive designed to maintain vaginal pH within the range of 3.5-4.5. READ MORE.

COVID-19 lessons from one cancer center

Physicians at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., largely have been able to keep hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and continue to care for inpatients during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. How have they kept the situation managable? Strict infection control, liberal testing, and a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate were all part of the strategy. “My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious, even before the coronavirus, using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in Levine Cancer Institute’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders. READ MORE.

Convalescent plasma: Hope or hype?

There are currently more than two dozen trials of convalescent plasma in the United States and elsewhere but most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help patients on a ventilator to improve. Others researchers are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in. Meanwhile, about 2,200 hospitals are participating in an expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide. The National Institutes of Health recently said that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19. READ MORE.

New rosacea treatment guidelines

Patients with rosacea should receive treatments based on their phenotype and specific symptoms, rather than being assigned into distinct subtype categories, according to updated guidance published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The update comes from the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee and is based on a review of the evidence. Patients “shouldn’t be classified as having a certain subtype of rosacea” since “many patients have features that overlap more than one subtype,” said Diane Thiboutot, MD, lead author of the update and a professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical and translational research education at Penn State University, Hershey. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Remdesivir trial data published

Weeks after topline remdesivir data appeared in the press, investigators published their full experience using the drug to treat COVID-19 patients. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed the drug reduced recovery time from 15 to 11 days, compared with placebo. Patients receiving oxygen seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir. “There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.” READ MORE.

FDA approves contraceptive gel

The Food and Drug Administration approved Phexxi (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) vaginal gel to prevent pregnancy in women of reproductive potential. It’s the first nonhormonal, on-demand, vaginal pH regulator contraceptive designed to maintain vaginal pH within the range of 3.5-4.5. READ MORE.

COVID-19 lessons from one cancer center

Physicians at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., largely have been able to keep hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and continue to care for inpatients during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. How have they kept the situation managable? Strict infection control, liberal testing, and a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate were all part of the strategy. “My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious, even before the coronavirus, using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in Levine Cancer Institute’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders. READ MORE.

Convalescent plasma: Hope or hype?

There are currently more than two dozen trials of convalescent plasma in the United States and elsewhere but most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help patients on a ventilator to improve. Others researchers are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in. Meanwhile, about 2,200 hospitals are participating in an expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide. The National Institutes of Health recently said that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19. READ MORE.

New rosacea treatment guidelines

Patients with rosacea should receive treatments based on their phenotype and specific symptoms, rather than being assigned into distinct subtype categories, according to updated guidance published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The update comes from the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee and is based on a review of the evidence. Patients “shouldn’t be classified as having a certain subtype of rosacea” since “many patients have features that overlap more than one subtype,” said Diane Thiboutot, MD, lead author of the update and a professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical and translational research education at Penn State University, Hershey. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Remdesivir trial data published

Weeks after topline remdesivir data appeared in the press, investigators published their full experience using the drug to treat COVID-19 patients. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed the drug reduced recovery time from 15 to 11 days, compared with placebo. Patients receiving oxygen seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir. “There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.” READ MORE.

FDA approves contraceptive gel

The Food and Drug Administration approved Phexxi (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) vaginal gel to prevent pregnancy in women of reproductive potential. It’s the first nonhormonal, on-demand, vaginal pH regulator contraceptive designed to maintain vaginal pH within the range of 3.5-4.5. READ MORE.

COVID-19 lessons from one cancer center

Physicians at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., largely have been able to keep hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and continue to care for inpatients during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. How have they kept the situation managable? Strict infection control, liberal testing, and a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate were all part of the strategy. “My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious, even before the coronavirus, using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in Levine Cancer Institute’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders. READ MORE.

Convalescent plasma: Hope or hype?

There are currently more than two dozen trials of convalescent plasma in the United States and elsewhere but most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help patients on a ventilator to improve. Others researchers are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in. Meanwhile, about 2,200 hospitals are participating in an expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide. The National Institutes of Health recently said that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19. READ MORE.

New rosacea treatment guidelines

Patients with rosacea should receive treatments based on their phenotype and specific symptoms, rather than being assigned into distinct subtype categories, according to updated guidance published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The update comes from the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee and is based on a review of the evidence. Patients “shouldn’t be classified as having a certain subtype of rosacea” since “many patients have features that overlap more than one subtype,” said Diane Thiboutot, MD, lead author of the update and a professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical and translational research education at Penn State University, Hershey. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Ignorance may be bliss for some. But as I sit here in my scenic social isolation on the Maine coast I find that, like most people, what I don’t know unsettles me. How is the COVID-19 virus spread? Does my wife’s wipe down of the doorknobs after I return from the grocery store really make us any less likely to contract the virus? Is wearing my homemade bandana face mask doing anything to protect me? I suspect not, but I wear it as a statement of courtesy and solidarity to my fellow community members.

zimmytws/Thinkstock

Does the 6-foot rule make any sense? I’ve read that it is based on a study dating back to the 1930s. I’ve seen images of the 25-foot droplet plume blasting out from a sneeze and understand that, as a bicyclist, I may be generating a shower of droplets in my wake. But, are those droplets a threat to anyone I pedal by if I am symptom free? What does being a carrier mean when we are talking about COVID-19?

What makes me more vulnerable to this particular virus as an apparently healthy septuagenarian? What collection of misfortunes have fallen on those younger victims of the pandemic? How often was it genetic?

Of course, none of us has the information yet that can provide us answers. This vacuum has attracted scores of “experts” bold enough or careless enough to venture an opinion. They may have also issued a caveat, but how often have the media failed to include it in the report or buried it in the fine print at the end of the story?

My discomfort with this information void has left me and you and everyone else to our imaginations to craft our own explanations. So, I try to piece together a construct based on what I can glean from what I read and see in the news because like most people I fortunately have no first-hand information about even a single case. The number of deaths is horrifying, but may not have hit close to home and given most of us a real personal sense of the illness and its character.

Maine is a small state with just over a million inhabitants, and most of us have some connection to one another. It may be that a person is the second cousin of someone who used to live 2 miles down the road. But, there is some feeling of familiarity. We have had deaths related to COVID-19, but very scanty information other than the county about where they occurred and whether the victim was a resident of an extended care facility. We are told very little if any details about exposure as officials invoke HIPAA regulations that leave us in the dark. Other than one vague reference to a “traveling salesman” who may have introduced the virus to several nursing homes, there has been very little information about how the virus may have been spread here in Maine. Even national reports of the deaths of high-profile entertainers and retired athletes are usually draped in the same haze of privacy.

Most of us don’t need to know the names and street addresses of the victims but a few anonymous narratives that include some general information on how epidemiologists believe clusters began and propagated would help us understand our risks with just a glimmer of clarity.

Of course the epidemiologists may not have the answers we are seeking because they too are struggling to untangle connections hampered by concerns of privacy. There is no question that privacy must remain an important part of the physician-patient relationship. But a pandemic has thrown us into a situation where common sense demands that HIPAA be interpreted with an emphasis on the greater good. Finding that balance between privacy and public knowledge will continue to be one of our greatest challenges.

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.

Ignorance may be bliss for some. But as I sit here in my scenic social isolation on the Maine coast I find that, like most people, what I don’t know unsettles me. How is the COVID-19 virus spread? Does my wife’s wipe down of the doorknobs after I return from the grocery store really make us any less likely to contract the virus? Is wearing my homemade bandana face mask doing anything to protect me? I suspect not, but I wear it as a statement of courtesy and solidarity to my fellow community members.

zimmytws/Thinkstock

Does the 6-foot rule make any sense? I’ve read that it is based on a study dating back to the 1930s. I’ve seen images of the 25-foot droplet plume blasting out from a sneeze and understand that, as a bicyclist, I may be generating a shower of droplets in my wake. But, are those droplets a threat to anyone I pedal by if I am symptom free? What does being a carrier mean when we are talking about COVID-19?

What makes me more vulnerable to this particular virus as an apparently healthy septuagenarian? What collection of misfortunes have fallen on those younger victims of the pandemic? How often was it genetic?

Of course, none of us has the information yet that can provide us answers. This vacuum has attracted scores of “experts” bold enough or careless enough to venture an opinion. They may have also issued a caveat, but how often have the media failed to include it in the report or buried it in the fine print at the end of the story?

My discomfort with this information void has left me and you and everyone else to our imaginations to craft our own explanations. So, I try to piece together a construct based on what I can glean from what I read and see in the news because like most people I fortunately have no first-hand information about even a single case. The number of deaths is horrifying, but may not have hit close to home and given most of us a real personal sense of the illness and its character.

Maine is a small state with just over a million inhabitants, and most of us have some connection to one another. It may be that a person is the second cousin of someone who used to live 2 miles down the road. But, there is some feeling of familiarity. We have had deaths related to COVID-19, but very scanty information other than the county about where they occurred and whether the victim was a resident of an extended care facility. We are told very little if any details about exposure as officials invoke HIPAA regulations that leave us in the dark. Other than one vague reference to a “traveling salesman” who may have introduced the virus to several nursing homes, there has been very little information about how the virus may have been spread here in Maine. Even national reports of the deaths of high-profile entertainers and retired athletes are usually draped in the same haze of privacy.

Most of us don’t need to know the names and street addresses of the victims but a few anonymous narratives that include some general information on how epidemiologists believe clusters began and propagated would help us understand our risks with just a glimmer of clarity.

Of course the epidemiologists may not have the answers we are seeking because they too are struggling to untangle connections hampered by concerns of privacy. There is no question that privacy must remain an important part of the physician-patient relationship. But a pandemic has thrown us into a situation where common sense demands that HIPAA be interpreted with an emphasis on the greater good. Finding that balance between privacy and public knowledge will continue to be one of our greatest challenges.

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.

Ignorance may be bliss for some. But as I sit here in my scenic social isolation on the Maine coast I find that, like most people, what I don’t know unsettles me. How is the COVID-19 virus spread? Does my wife’s wipe down of the doorknobs after I return from the grocery store really make us any less likely to contract the virus? Is wearing my homemade bandana face mask doing anything to protect me? I suspect not, but I wear it as a statement of courtesy and solidarity to my fellow community members.

zimmytws/Thinkstock

Does the 6-foot rule make any sense? I’ve read that it is based on a study dating back to the 1930s. I’ve seen images of the 25-foot droplet plume blasting out from a sneeze and understand that, as a bicyclist, I may be generating a shower of droplets in my wake. But, are those droplets a threat to anyone I pedal by if I am symptom free? What does being a carrier mean when we are talking about COVID-19?

What makes me more vulnerable to this particular virus as an apparently healthy septuagenarian? What collection of misfortunes have fallen on those younger victims of the pandemic? How often was it genetic?

Of course, none of us has the information yet that can provide us answers. This vacuum has attracted scores of “experts” bold enough or careless enough to venture an opinion. They may have also issued a caveat, but how often have the media failed to include it in the report or buried it in the fine print at the end of the story?

My discomfort with this information void has left me and you and everyone else to our imaginations to craft our own explanations. So, I try to piece together a construct based on what I can glean from what I read and see in the news because like most people I fortunately have no first-hand information about even a single case. The number of deaths is horrifying, but may not have hit close to home and given most of us a real personal sense of the illness and its character.

Maine is a small state with just over a million inhabitants, and most of us have some connection to one another. It may be that a person is the second cousin of someone who used to live 2 miles down the road. But, there is some feeling of familiarity. We have had deaths related to COVID-19, but very scanty information other than the county about where they occurred and whether the victim was a resident of an extended care facility. We are told very little if any details about exposure as officials invoke HIPAA regulations that leave us in the dark. Other than one vague reference to a “traveling salesman” who may have introduced the virus to several nursing homes, there has been very little information about how the virus may have been spread here in Maine. Even national reports of the deaths of high-profile entertainers and retired athletes are usually draped in the same haze of privacy.

Most of us don’t need to know the names and street addresses of the victims but a few anonymous narratives that include some general information on how epidemiologists believe clusters began and propagated would help us understand our risks with just a glimmer of clarity.

Of course the epidemiologists may not have the answers we are seeking because they too are struggling to untangle connections hampered by concerns of privacy. There is no question that privacy must remain an important part of the physician-patient relationship. But a pandemic has thrown us into a situation where common sense demands that HIPAA be interpreted with an emphasis on the greater good. Finding that balance between privacy and public knowledge will continue to be one of our greatest challenges.

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.

The need for mental health services has never been greater. Unfortunately, many patients have limited access to psychiatric treatment, especially those who live in rural areas. Telepsychiatry—the delivery of psychiatric services through telecommunications technology, usually video conferencing—may help address this problem. Even before the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telepsychiatry was becoming increasingly common. A survey of US mental health facilities found that the proportion of facilities offering telepsychiatry nearly doubled from 2010 to 2017, from 15.2% to 29.2%.¹

In this article, we describe examples of where and how telepsychiatry is being used successfully, and its potential advantages. We discuss concerns about its use, its impact on the therapeutic alliance, and patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of it. We also discuss the legal, technological, and financial aspects of using telepsychiatry. With an increased understanding of these issues, psychiatric clinicians will be better able to integrate telepsychiatry into their practices.

How and where is telepsychiatry being used

In addition to being used to provide psychotherapy, telepsychiatry is being employed for diagnosis and evaluation; clinical consultations; research; supervision, mentoring, and education of trainees; development of treatment programs; and public health. Telepsychiatry is an excellent mechanism to provide high-level second opinions to primary care physicians and psychiatrists on complex cases for both diagnostic purposes and treatment.

Evidence suggests that telepsychiatry can play a beneficial role in a variety of settings, and for a range of patient populations.

Emergency departments (EDs). Using telepsychiatry for psychiatric consultations in EDs could result in a quicker disposition of patients and reduced crowding and wait times. A survey of on-call clinicians in a pediatric ED found that using telepsychiatry for on-site psychiatric consultations decreased patients’ length of stay, improved resident on-call burden, and reduced factors related to physician burnout.² In this study, telepsychiatry use reduced travel for face-to-face evaluations by 75% and saved more than 2 hours per call day.²

Medical clinics. Using telepsychiatry to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy significantly reduced symptoms of depression or anxiety among 203 primary care patients.³ Incorporating telepsychiatry into existing integrated primary care settings is becoming more common. For example, an integrated-care model that includes telepsychiatry is serving the needs of complex patients in a high-volume, urban primary care clinic in Colorado.⁴

Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams. Telepsychiatry is being used by ACT teams for crisis intervention and to reduce inpatient hospitalizations.⁵

Continue to: Correctional facilities

Correctional facilities. With the downsizing and closure of many state psychiatric hospitals across the United States over the last several decades, jails and prisons have become de facto mental health hospitals. This situation presents many challenges, including access to mental health care and the need to avoid medications with the potential for abuse. Using telepsychiatry for psychiatric consultations in correctional facilities can improve access to mental health care.

Geriatric patients. A systematic review of 76 studies evaluating telepsychiatry for older patients found this approach was well-accepted for inpatient and nursing home consultation, cognitive testing, dementia diagnosis and treatment, depression in integrated and collaborative care models, and psychotherapy.⁶ Another review of telepsychiatry for geriatric patients found that it supports mental health practice, especially when face-to-face therapy is not possible.⁷ The main drawbacks were technical problems and lack of support from staff.

Children and adolescents. The Michigan Child Collaborative Care (MC3) program is a telepsychiatry consultation service that has been able to provide cost-effective, timely, remote consultation to primary care clinicians who care for youth and perinatal women.⁸ New York has a pediatric collaborative care program, the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry for Primary Care (CAP PC), that incorporates telepsychiatry consultations for families who live >1 hour away from one of the program’s treatment sites.⁹

Patients with cancer. A literature review that included 9 studies found no statistically significant differences between standard face-to-face interventions and telepsychiatry for improving quality-of-life scores among patients receiving treatment for cancer.¹⁰

Patients with insomnia. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is often recommended as a first-line treatment, but is not available for many patients. A recent study showed that CBT-I provided via telepsychiatry for patients with shift work sleep disorder was as effective as face-to-face therapy.¹¹ Increasing the availability of this treatment could decrease reliance on pharmacotherapy for sleep.

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). Treatment for patients with OUD is limited by access to, and availability of, psychiatric clinicians. Telepsychiatry can help bridge this gap. One example of such use is in Ontario, Canada, where more than 10,000 patients with concurrent opiate abuse and other mental health disorders have received care via telepsychiatry since 2008.¹²

Continue to: Increasing access to cost-effective care where it is needed most

Increasing access to cost-effective care where it is needed most

There is a crisis in mental health care in rural areas of the United States. A study assessing delivery of care to US residents who live in rural areas found these patients’ mental health–related quality of life was 2.5 standard deviations below the national mean.¹³ Additionally, the need for treatment is expected to rise as the number of psychiatrists falls. According to a 2017 National Council for Behavioral Health report,¹⁴ by 2025, demand may outstrip supply by 6,090 to 15,600 psychiatrists. While telepsychiatry cannot improve this shortage per se, it can help increase access to psychiatric services. The potential benefits of telepsychiatry for patients are summarized in Table 1.¹⁵

Telepsychiatry may be more cost-effective than traditional face-to-face treatment. A cost analysis of an expanding, multistate behavioral telehealth intervention program for rural American Indian/Alaska Native populations found substantial cost savings associated with telepsychiatry.¹⁶ In this analysis, the estimated cost efficiencies of telepsychiatry were more evident in rural communities, and having a multistate center was less expensive than each state operating independently.¹⁶

Most importantly, evidence suggests that treatment delivered via telepsychiatry is at least as effective as traditional face-to-face care. In a review that included >150 studies, Bashshur et al¹⁷ concluded, “Effective approaches to the long-term management of mental illness include monitoring, surveillance, mental health promotion, mental illness prevention, and biopsychosocial treatment programs. The empirical evidence … demonstrates the capability of [telepsychiatry] to perform these functions more efficiently and as well as or more effectively than in-person care.”

Clinician and patient attitudes toward telepsychiatry

Clinicians have legitimate concerns about the quality of care being delivered when using telepsychiatry. Are patients satisfied with treatment delivered via telepsychiatry? Can a therapeutic alliance be established and maintained? It appears that clinicians may have more concerns than patients do.¹⁸

A study of telepsychiatry consultations for patients in rural primary care clinics performed by clinicians at an urban health center found that patients and clinicians were highly satisfied with telepsychiatry.¹⁹ Both patients and clinicians believed that telepsychiatry provided patients with better access to care. There was a high degree of agreement between patients and clinician responses.¹⁹

Continue to: In a review of...

In a review of 452 telepsychiatry studies, Hubley et al²⁰ focused on satisfaction, reliability, treatment outcomes, implementation outcomes, cost effectiveness, and legal issues. They concluded that patients and clinicians are generally satisfied with telepsychiatry services. Interestingly, clinicians expressed more concerns about the potential adverse effects of telepsychiatry on therapeutic rapport. Hubley et al²⁰ found no published reports of adverse events associated with telepsychiatry use.

In a study of school-based telepsychiatry in an urban setting, Mayworm et al²¹ found that patients were highly satisfied with both in-person and telepsychiatry services, and there were no significant differences in preference. This study also found that telepsychiatry services were more time-efficient than in-person services.

A study of using telepsychiatry to treat unipolar depression found that patient satisfaction scores improved with increasing number of video-based sessions, and were similar among all age groups.²² An analysis of this study found that total satisfaction scores were higher for patients than for clinicians.²³

In a study of satisfaction with telepsychiatry among community-dwelling older veterans, 90% of participants reported liking or even preferring telepsychiatry, even though the experience was novel for most of them.²⁴

As always, patients’ preferences need to be kept in mind when considering what services can and should be provided via telepsychiatry, because not all patients will find it acceptable. For example, in a study of veterans’ attitudes toward treatment via telepsychiatry, Goetter et al²⁵ found that interest was mixed. Twenty-six percent of patients were “not at all comfortable,” while 13% were “extremely comfortable” using telepsychiatry from home. Notably, 33% indicated a clear preference for telepsychiatry compared to in-person mental health visits.

Continue to: Legal aspects of telepsychiatry

Legal aspects of telepsychiatry

When conducting telepsychiatry services, clinicians need to consider several legal issues, including federal and state regulations, as well as professional liability. In a 2017 article, Vanderpool²⁶ provided a comprehensive overview of the legal aspects of telepsychiatry. In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several key federal telehealth regulations were suspended. Telehealth service locations were broadened to allow patients to be interviewed at their homes. In addition, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements were loosened to allow for nonsecure communications with patients in certain settings. Box 1 highlights these changes and offers tips for using telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Box 1

Licensure. State licensing and medical regulatory organizations consider the care provided via telepsychiatry to be rendered where the patient is physically located when services are rendered. Because of this, psychiatrists who use telepsychiatry generally need to hold a license in the state where their patients are located, regardless of where the psychiatrist is located.

Some states offer special telemedicine licenses. Typically, these licenses allow clinicians to practice across state lines without having to obtain a full professional license from the state. Be sure to check with the relevant state medical board where you intend to practice.

Because state laws related to telepsychiatry are continuously evolving, we suggest that clinicians continually check these laws and obtain a regulatory response in writing so there is ongoing documentation. For more information on this topic, see “Telepsychiatry during COVID-19: Understanding the rules” at MDedge.com/psychiatry.

Malpractice insurance. Some insurance companies offer coverage that includes the practice of telepsychiatry, whereas other carriers require the purchase of additional coverage for telepsychiatry. There may be additional requirements for practicing across state lines. Be sure to check with your insurer.

Continue to: Technical requirements and costs

 

 

Technical requirements and costs

In order to perform telepsychiatry, one needs Internet access, appropriate hardware such as a desktop or laptop computer or tablet, and a video conferencing application. Software must be HIPAA-compliant, although this requirement is not being enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several popular video conferencing platforms were designed for or have versions suitable for telemedicine, including Zoom, Doxy.me, Vidyo, and Skype.

The use of different electronic health record (EHR) systems by various health care systems is a barrier to using telepsychiatry. One potential solution is to use a web portal, such as the one developed by East Carolina University’s North Carolina Statewide Telepsychiatry Program (NC-STeP), which connects hospital EDs and community-based primary care sites with remote psychiatric clinicians, allowing them to share secure electronic health information across different EHRs.²⁷Box 2 provides more details about this program.

Box 2

Our practice has extensive experience with telepsychiatry (Box 3), and for us, the specific costs associated with providing telepsychiatry services include maintenance of infrastructure and the purchase of hardware (eg, computers, smartphones, tablets), a video conferencing application (some free versions are available), EHR systems, and Internet access.

Box 3

Reimbursement for telepsychiatry

Private insurance reimbursement for treatment delivered via telepsychiatry obviously depends on the specific insurance company. Some facilities, such as nursing homes, hospitals, medical clinics, and correctional facilities, offer lump-sum fees to clinicians for providing contracted services. Some clinicians are providing telepsychiatry as direct-bill or concierge services, which require direct payment from the patient without any reimbursement from insurance.

Medicare Part B covers some telepsychiatry services, but only under certain conditions.²⁸ Previously, reimbursement was limited to services provided to patients who live in rural areas. However, on November 1, 2019, eligibility for telehealth services for Medicare Advantage (MA) recipients was expanded to include patients in both urban and rural locations. Patients covered by MA also can receive telehealth services from their home, instead of having to drive to a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services–qualified telehealth service center.

Continue to: Medicaid is the single...

Medicaid is the single largest payer for mental health services in the United States,²⁹ and all Medicaid programs reimburse for some telepsychiatry services. As with all Medicaid health care, fees paid for telepsychiatry are state-specific. Since 2013, several state Medicaid programs, including New York,³⁰ have expanded the list of eligible telehealth sites to include schools, thereby giving children virtual access to mental health clinicians.

Getting started

Clinicians who are interested in starting to provide treatment via telepsychiatry can begin by reviewing the American Psychiatric Association’s Telepsychiatry Toolkit at www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit. This toolkit, which is being continually updated, features numerous training videos for clinicians new to telepsychiatry, such as Learning To Do Telemental Health (www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/learning-telemental-health) and The Credentialing Process (www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/credentialing-process). Before starting, also consider reviewing the steps listed in Table 2.

Bottom Line

Evidence suggests telepsychiatry can be beneficial for a wide range of patient populations and settings. Most patients accept its use, and some actually prefer it to face-to-face care. Telepsychiatry may be especially useful for patients who have limited access to psychiatric treatment, such as those who live in rural areas. Factors to consider before incorporating telepsychiatry into your practice include addressing various legal, technological, and financial requirements.

Related Resources

• Von Hafften A. Telepsychiatry practice guidelines. American Psychiatric Association. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/practice-guidelines.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Telehealth and telemedicine: a research anthology of law and policy resources. https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/anthologies/anthologies-telehealth.html. Reviewed July 31, 2019.
• American Telemedicine Association. https://www.americantelemed.org/.

The need for mental health services has never been greater. Unfortunately, many patients have limited access to psychiatric treatment, especially those who live in rural areas. Telepsychiatry—the delivery of psychiatric services through telecommunications technology, usually video conferencing—may help address this problem. Even before the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telepsychiatry was becoming increasingly common. A survey of US mental health facilities found that the proportion of facilities offering telepsychiatry nearly doubled from 2010 to 2017, from 15.2% to 29.2%.¹

In this article, we describe examples of where and how telepsychiatry is being used successfully, and its potential advantages. We discuss concerns about its use, its impact on the therapeutic alliance, and patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of it. We also discuss the legal, technological, and financial aspects of using telepsychiatry. With an increased understanding of these issues, psychiatric clinicians will be better able to integrate telepsychiatry into their practices.

How and where is telepsychiatry being used

In addition to being used to provide psychotherapy, telepsychiatry is being employed for diagnosis and evaluation; clinical consultations; research; supervision, mentoring, and education of trainees; development of treatment programs; and public health. Telepsychiatry is an excellent mechanism to provide high-level second opinions to primary care physicians and psychiatrists on complex cases for both diagnostic purposes and treatment.

Evidence suggests that telepsychiatry can play a beneficial role in a variety of settings, and for a range of patient populations.

Emergency departments (EDs). Using telepsychiatry for psychiatric consultations in EDs could result in a quicker disposition of patients and reduced crowding and wait times. A survey of on-call clinicians in a pediatric ED found that using telepsychiatry for on-site psychiatric consultations decreased patients’ length of stay, improved resident on-call burden, and reduced factors related to physician burnout.² In this study, telepsychiatry use reduced travel for face-to-face evaluations by 75% and saved more than 2 hours per call day.²

Medical clinics. Using telepsychiatry to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy significantly reduced symptoms of depression or anxiety among 203 primary care patients.³ Incorporating telepsychiatry into existing integrated primary care settings is becoming more common. For example, an integrated-care model that includes telepsychiatry is serving the needs of complex patients in a high-volume, urban primary care clinic in Colorado.⁴

Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams. Telepsychiatry is being used by ACT teams for crisis intervention and to reduce inpatient hospitalizations.⁵

Continue to: Correctional facilities

Correctional facilities. With the downsizing and closure of many state psychiatric hospitals across the United States over the last several decades, jails and prisons have become de facto mental health hospitals. This situation presents many challenges, including access to mental health care and the need to avoid medications with the potential for abuse. Using telepsychiatry for psychiatric consultations in correctional facilities can improve access to mental health care.

Geriatric patients. A systematic review of 76 studies evaluating telepsychiatry for older patients found this approach was well-accepted for inpatient and nursing home consultation, cognitive testing, dementia diagnosis and treatment, depression in integrated and collaborative care models, and psychotherapy.⁶ Another review of telepsychiatry for geriatric patients found that it supports mental health practice, especially when face-to-face therapy is not possible.⁷ The main drawbacks were technical problems and lack of support from staff.

Children and adolescents. The Michigan Child Collaborative Care (MC3) program is a telepsychiatry consultation service that has been able to provide cost-effective, timely, remote consultation to primary care clinicians who care for youth and perinatal women.⁸ New York has a pediatric collaborative care program, the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry for Primary Care (CAP PC), that incorporates telepsychiatry consultations for families who live >1 hour away from one of the program’s treatment sites.⁹

Patients with cancer. A literature review that included 9 studies found no statistically significant differences between standard face-to-face interventions and telepsychiatry for improving quality-of-life scores among patients receiving treatment for cancer.¹⁰

Patients with insomnia. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is often recommended as a first-line treatment, but is not available for many patients. A recent study showed that CBT-I provided via telepsychiatry for patients with shift work sleep disorder was as effective as face-to-face therapy.¹¹ Increasing the availability of this treatment could decrease reliance on pharmacotherapy for sleep.

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). Treatment for patients with OUD is limited by access to, and availability of, psychiatric clinicians. Telepsychiatry can help bridge this gap. One example of such use is in Ontario, Canada, where more than 10,000 patients with concurrent opiate abuse and other mental health disorders have received care via telepsychiatry since 2008.¹²

Continue to: Increasing access to cost-effective care where it is needed most

Increasing access to cost-effective care where it is needed most

There is a crisis in mental health care in rural areas of the United States. A study assessing delivery of care to US residents who live in rural areas found these patients’ mental health–related quality of life was 2.5 standard deviations below the national mean.¹³ Additionally, the need for treatment is expected to rise as the number of psychiatrists falls. According to a 2017 National Council for Behavioral Health report,¹⁴ by 2025, demand may outstrip supply by 6,090 to 15,600 psychiatrists. While telepsychiatry cannot improve this shortage per se, it can help increase access to psychiatric services. The potential benefits of telepsychiatry for patients are summarized in Table 1.¹⁵

Telepsychiatry may be more cost-effective than traditional face-to-face treatment. A cost analysis of an expanding, multistate behavioral telehealth intervention program for rural American Indian/Alaska Native populations found substantial cost savings associated with telepsychiatry.¹⁶ In this analysis, the estimated cost efficiencies of telepsychiatry were more evident in rural communities, and having a multistate center was less expensive than each state operating independently.¹⁶

Most importantly, evidence suggests that treatment delivered via telepsychiatry is at least as effective as traditional face-to-face care. In a review that included >150 studies, Bashshur et al¹⁷ concluded, “Effective approaches to the long-term management of mental illness include monitoring, surveillance, mental health promotion, mental illness prevention, and biopsychosocial treatment programs. The empirical evidence … demonstrates the capability of [telepsychiatry] to perform these functions more efficiently and as well as or more effectively than in-person care.”

Clinician and patient attitudes toward telepsychiatry

Clinicians have legitimate concerns about the quality of care being delivered when using telepsychiatry. Are patients satisfied with treatment delivered via telepsychiatry? Can a therapeutic alliance be established and maintained? It appears that clinicians may have more concerns than patients do.¹⁸

A study of telepsychiatry consultations for patients in rural primary care clinics performed by clinicians at an urban health center found that patients and clinicians were highly satisfied with telepsychiatry.¹⁹ Both patients and clinicians believed that telepsychiatry provided patients with better access to care. There was a high degree of agreement between patients and clinician responses.¹⁹

Continue to: In a review of...

In a review of 452 telepsychiatry studies, Hubley et al²⁰ focused on satisfaction, reliability, treatment outcomes, implementation outcomes, cost effectiveness, and legal issues. They concluded that patients and clinicians are generally satisfied with telepsychiatry services. Interestingly, clinicians expressed more concerns about the potential adverse effects of telepsychiatry on therapeutic rapport. Hubley et al²⁰ found no published reports of adverse events associated with telepsychiatry use.

In a study of school-based telepsychiatry in an urban setting, Mayworm et al²¹ found that patients were highly satisfied with both in-person and telepsychiatry services, and there were no significant differences in preference. This study also found that telepsychiatry services were more time-efficient than in-person services.

A study of using telepsychiatry to treat unipolar depression found that patient satisfaction scores improved with increasing number of video-based sessions, and were similar among all age groups.²² An analysis of this study found that total satisfaction scores were higher for patients than for clinicians.²³

In a study of satisfaction with telepsychiatry among community-dwelling older veterans, 90% of participants reported liking or even preferring telepsychiatry, even though the experience was novel for most of them.²⁴

As always, patients’ preferences need to be kept in mind when considering what services can and should be provided via telepsychiatry, because not all patients will find it acceptable. For example, in a study of veterans’ attitudes toward treatment via telepsychiatry, Goetter et al²⁵ found that interest was mixed. Twenty-six percent of patients were “not at all comfortable,” while 13% were “extremely comfortable” using telepsychiatry from home. Notably, 33% indicated a clear preference for telepsychiatry compared to in-person mental health visits.

Continue to: Legal aspects of telepsychiatry

Legal aspects of telepsychiatry

When conducting telepsychiatry services, clinicians need to consider several legal issues, including federal and state regulations, as well as professional liability. In a 2017 article, Vanderpool²⁶ provided a comprehensive overview of the legal aspects of telepsychiatry. In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several key federal telehealth regulations were suspended. Telehealth service locations were broadened to allow patients to be interviewed at their homes. In addition, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements were loosened to allow for nonsecure communications with patients in certain settings. Box 1 highlights these changes and offers tips for using telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Box 1

Licensure. State licensing and medical regulatory organizations consider the care provided via telepsychiatry to be rendered where the patient is physically located when services are rendered. Because of this, psychiatrists who use telepsychiatry generally need to hold a license in the state where their patients are located, regardless of where the psychiatrist is located.

Some states offer special telemedicine licenses. Typically, these licenses allow clinicians to practice across state lines without having to obtain a full professional license from the state. Be sure to check with the relevant state medical board where you intend to practice.

Because state laws related to telepsychiatry are continuously evolving, we suggest that clinicians continually check these laws and obtain a regulatory response in writing so there is ongoing documentation. For more information on this topic, see “Telepsychiatry during COVID-19: Understanding the rules” at MDedge.com/psychiatry.

Malpractice insurance. Some insurance companies offer coverage that includes the practice of telepsychiatry, whereas other carriers require the purchase of additional coverage for telepsychiatry. There may be additional requirements for practicing across state lines. Be sure to check with your insurer.

Continue to: Technical requirements and costs

 

 

Technical requirements and costs

In order to perform telepsychiatry, one needs Internet access, appropriate hardware such as a desktop or laptop computer or tablet, and a video conferencing application. Software must be HIPAA-compliant, although this requirement is not being enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several popular video conferencing platforms were designed for or have versions suitable for telemedicine, including Zoom, Doxy.me, Vidyo, and Skype.

The use of different electronic health record (EHR) systems by various health care systems is a barrier to using telepsychiatry. One potential solution is to use a web portal, such as the one developed by East Carolina University’s North Carolina Statewide Telepsychiatry Program (NC-STeP), which connects hospital EDs and community-based primary care sites with remote psychiatric clinicians, allowing them to share secure electronic health information across different EHRs.²⁷Box 2 provides more details about this program.

Box 2

Our practice has extensive experience with telepsychiatry (Box 3), and for us, the specific costs associated with providing telepsychiatry services include maintenance of infrastructure and the purchase of hardware (eg, computers, smartphones, tablets), a video conferencing application (some free versions are available), EHR systems, and Internet access.

Box 3

Reimbursement for telepsychiatry

Private insurance reimbursement for treatment delivered via telepsychiatry obviously depends on the specific insurance company. Some facilities, such as nursing homes, hospitals, medical clinics, and correctional facilities, offer lump-sum fees to clinicians for providing contracted services. Some clinicians are providing telepsychiatry as direct-bill or concierge services, which require direct payment from the patient without any reimbursement from insurance.

Medicare Part B covers some telepsychiatry services, but only under certain conditions.²⁸ Previously, reimbursement was limited to services provided to patients who live in rural areas. However, on November 1, 2019, eligibility for telehealth services for Medicare Advantage (MA) recipients was expanded to include patients in both urban and rural locations. Patients covered by MA also can receive telehealth services from their home, instead of having to drive to a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services–qualified telehealth service center.

Continue to: Medicaid is the single...

Medicaid is the single largest payer for mental health services in the United States,²⁹ and all Medicaid programs reimburse for some telepsychiatry services. As with all Medicaid health care, fees paid for telepsychiatry are state-specific. Since 2013, several state Medicaid programs, including New York,³⁰ have expanded the list of eligible telehealth sites to include schools, thereby giving children virtual access to mental health clinicians.

Getting started

Clinicians who are interested in starting to provide treatment via telepsychiatry can begin by reviewing the American Psychiatric Association’s Telepsychiatry Toolkit at www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit. This toolkit, which is being continually updated, features numerous training videos for clinicians new to telepsychiatry, such as Learning To Do Telemental Health (www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/learning-telemental-health) and The Credentialing Process (www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/credentialing-process). Before starting, also consider reviewing the steps listed in Table 2.

Bottom Line

Evidence suggests telepsychiatry can be beneficial for a wide range of patient populations and settings. Most patients accept its use, and some actually prefer it to face-to-face care. Telepsychiatry may be especially useful for patients who have limited access to psychiatric treatment, such as those who live in rural areas. Factors to consider before incorporating telepsychiatry into your practice include addressing various legal, technological, and financial requirements.

Related Resources

• Von Hafften A. Telepsychiatry practice guidelines. American Psychiatric Association. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/practice-guidelines.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Telehealth and telemedicine: a research anthology of law and policy resources. https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/anthologies/anthologies-telehealth.html. Reviewed July 31, 2019.
• American Telemedicine Association. https://www.americantelemed.org/.

The need for mental health services has never been greater. Unfortunately, many patients have limited access to psychiatric treatment, especially those who live in rural areas. Telepsychiatry—the delivery of psychiatric services through telecommunications technology, usually video conferencing—may help address this problem. Even before the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telepsychiatry was becoming increasingly common. A survey of US mental health facilities found that the proportion of facilities offering telepsychiatry nearly doubled from 2010 to 2017, from 15.2% to 29.2%.¹

In this article, we describe examples of where and how telepsychiatry is being used successfully, and its potential advantages. We discuss concerns about its use, its impact on the therapeutic alliance, and patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of it. We also discuss the legal, technological, and financial aspects of using telepsychiatry. With an increased understanding of these issues, psychiatric clinicians will be better able to integrate telepsychiatry into their practices.

How and where is telepsychiatry being used

In addition to being used to provide psychotherapy, telepsychiatry is being employed for diagnosis and evaluation; clinical consultations; research; supervision, mentoring, and education of trainees; development of treatment programs; and public health. Telepsychiatry is an excellent mechanism to provide high-level second opinions to primary care physicians and psychiatrists on complex cases for both diagnostic purposes and treatment.

Evidence suggests that telepsychiatry can play a beneficial role in a variety of settings, and for a range of patient populations.

Emergency departments (EDs). Using telepsychiatry for psychiatric consultations in EDs could result in a quicker disposition of patients and reduced crowding and wait times. A survey of on-call clinicians in a pediatric ED found that using telepsychiatry for on-site psychiatric consultations decreased patients’ length of stay, improved resident on-call burden, and reduced factors related to physician burnout.² In this study, telepsychiatry use reduced travel for face-to-face evaluations by 75% and saved more than 2 hours per call day.²

Medical clinics. Using telepsychiatry to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy significantly reduced symptoms of depression or anxiety among 203 primary care patients.³ Incorporating telepsychiatry into existing integrated primary care settings is becoming more common. For example, an integrated-care model that includes telepsychiatry is serving the needs of complex patients in a high-volume, urban primary care clinic in Colorado.⁴

Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams. Telepsychiatry is being used by ACT teams for crisis intervention and to reduce inpatient hospitalizations.⁵

Continue to: Correctional facilities

Correctional facilities. With the downsizing and closure of many state psychiatric hospitals across the United States over the last several decades, jails and prisons have become de facto mental health hospitals. This situation presents many challenges, including access to mental health care and the need to avoid medications with the potential for abuse. Using telepsychiatry for psychiatric consultations in correctional facilities can improve access to mental health care.

Geriatric patients. A systematic review of 76 studies evaluating telepsychiatry for older patients found this approach was well-accepted for inpatient and nursing home consultation, cognitive testing, dementia diagnosis and treatment, depression in integrated and collaborative care models, and psychotherapy.⁶ Another review of telepsychiatry for geriatric patients found that it supports mental health practice, especially when face-to-face therapy is not possible.⁷ The main drawbacks were technical problems and lack of support from staff.

Children and adolescents. The Michigan Child Collaborative Care (MC3) program is a telepsychiatry consultation service that has been able to provide cost-effective, timely, remote consultation to primary care clinicians who care for youth and perinatal women.⁸ New York has a pediatric collaborative care program, the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry for Primary Care (CAP PC), that incorporates telepsychiatry consultations for families who live >1 hour away from one of the program’s treatment sites.⁹

Patients with cancer. A literature review that included 9 studies found no statistically significant differences between standard face-to-face interventions and telepsychiatry for improving quality-of-life scores among patients receiving treatment for cancer.¹⁰

Patients with insomnia. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is often recommended as a first-line treatment, but is not available for many patients. A recent study showed that CBT-I provided via telepsychiatry for patients with shift work sleep disorder was as effective as face-to-face therapy.¹¹ Increasing the availability of this treatment could decrease reliance on pharmacotherapy for sleep.

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). Treatment for patients with OUD is limited by access to, and availability of, psychiatric clinicians. Telepsychiatry can help bridge this gap. One example of such use is in Ontario, Canada, where more than 10,000 patients with concurrent opiate abuse and other mental health disorders have received care via telepsychiatry since 2008.¹²

Continue to: Increasing access to cost-effective care where it is needed most

Increasing access to cost-effective care where it is needed most

There is a crisis in mental health care in rural areas of the United States. A study assessing delivery of care to US residents who live in rural areas found these patients’ mental health–related quality of life was 2.5 standard deviations below the national mean.¹³ Additionally, the need for treatment is expected to rise as the number of psychiatrists falls. According to a 2017 National Council for Behavioral Health report,¹⁴ by 2025, demand may outstrip supply by 6,090 to 15,600 psychiatrists. While telepsychiatry cannot improve this shortage per se, it can help increase access to psychiatric services. The potential benefits of telepsychiatry for patients are summarized in Table 1.¹⁵

Telepsychiatry may be more cost-effective than traditional face-to-face treatment. A cost analysis of an expanding, multistate behavioral telehealth intervention program for rural American Indian/Alaska Native populations found substantial cost savings associated with telepsychiatry.¹⁶ In this analysis, the estimated cost efficiencies of telepsychiatry were more evident in rural communities, and having a multistate center was less expensive than each state operating independently.¹⁶

Most importantly, evidence suggests that treatment delivered via telepsychiatry is at least as effective as traditional face-to-face care. In a review that included >150 studies, Bashshur et al¹⁷ concluded, “Effective approaches to the long-term management of mental illness include monitoring, surveillance, mental health promotion, mental illness prevention, and biopsychosocial treatment programs. The empirical evidence … demonstrates the capability of [telepsychiatry] to perform these functions more efficiently and as well as or more effectively than in-person care.”

Clinician and patient attitudes toward telepsychiatry

Clinicians have legitimate concerns about the quality of care being delivered when using telepsychiatry. Are patients satisfied with treatment delivered via telepsychiatry? Can a therapeutic alliance be established and maintained? It appears that clinicians may have more concerns than patients do.¹⁸

A study of telepsychiatry consultations for patients in rural primary care clinics performed by clinicians at an urban health center found that patients and clinicians were highly satisfied with telepsychiatry.¹⁹ Both patients and clinicians believed that telepsychiatry provided patients with better access to care. There was a high degree of agreement between patients and clinician responses.¹⁹

Continue to: In a review of...

In a review of 452 telepsychiatry studies, Hubley et al²⁰ focused on satisfaction, reliability, treatment outcomes, implementation outcomes, cost effectiveness, and legal issues. They concluded that patients and clinicians are generally satisfied with telepsychiatry services. Interestingly, clinicians expressed more concerns about the potential adverse effects of telepsychiatry on therapeutic rapport. Hubley et al²⁰ found no published reports of adverse events associated with telepsychiatry use.

In a study of school-based telepsychiatry in an urban setting, Mayworm et al²¹ found that patients were highly satisfied with both in-person and telepsychiatry services, and there were no significant differences in preference. This study also found that telepsychiatry services were more time-efficient than in-person services.

A study of using telepsychiatry to treat unipolar depression found that patient satisfaction scores improved with increasing number of video-based sessions, and were similar among all age groups.²² An analysis of this study found that total satisfaction scores were higher for patients than for clinicians.²³

In a study of satisfaction with telepsychiatry among community-dwelling older veterans, 90% of participants reported liking or even preferring telepsychiatry, even though the experience was novel for most of them.²⁴

As always, patients’ preferences need to be kept in mind when considering what services can and should be provided via telepsychiatry, because not all patients will find it acceptable. For example, in a study of veterans’ attitudes toward treatment via telepsychiatry, Goetter et al²⁵ found that interest was mixed. Twenty-six percent of patients were “not at all comfortable,” while 13% were “extremely comfortable” using telepsychiatry from home. Notably, 33% indicated a clear preference for telepsychiatry compared to in-person mental health visits.

Continue to: Legal aspects of telepsychiatry

Legal aspects of telepsychiatry

When conducting telepsychiatry services, clinicians need to consider several legal issues, including federal and state regulations, as well as professional liability. In a 2017 article, Vanderpool²⁶ provided a comprehensive overview of the legal aspects of telepsychiatry. In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several key federal telehealth regulations were suspended. Telehealth service locations were broadened to allow patients to be interviewed at their homes. In addition, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements were loosened to allow for nonsecure communications with patients in certain settings. Box 1 highlights these changes and offers tips for using telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Box 1

Licensure. State licensing and medical regulatory organizations consider the care provided via telepsychiatry to be rendered where the patient is physically located when services are rendered. Because of this, psychiatrists who use telepsychiatry generally need to hold a license in the state where their patients are located, regardless of where the psychiatrist is located.

Some states offer special telemedicine licenses. Typically, these licenses allow clinicians to practice across state lines without having to obtain a full professional license from the state. Be sure to check with the relevant state medical board where you intend to practice.

Because state laws related to telepsychiatry are continuously evolving, we suggest that clinicians continually check these laws and obtain a regulatory response in writing so there is ongoing documentation. For more information on this topic, see “Telepsychiatry during COVID-19: Understanding the rules” at MDedge.com/psychiatry.

Malpractice insurance. Some insurance companies offer coverage that includes the practice of telepsychiatry, whereas other carriers require the purchase of additional coverage for telepsychiatry. There may be additional requirements for practicing across state lines. Be sure to check with your insurer.

Continue to: Technical requirements and costs

 

 

Technical requirements and costs

In order to perform telepsychiatry, one needs Internet access, appropriate hardware such as a desktop or laptop computer or tablet, and a video conferencing application. Software must be HIPAA-compliant, although this requirement is not being enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several popular video conferencing platforms were designed for or have versions suitable for telemedicine, including Zoom, Doxy.me, Vidyo, and Skype.

The use of different electronic health record (EHR) systems by various health care systems is a barrier to using telepsychiatry. One potential solution is to use a web portal, such as the one developed by East Carolina University’s North Carolina Statewide Telepsychiatry Program (NC-STeP), which connects hospital EDs and community-based primary care sites with remote psychiatric clinicians, allowing them to share secure electronic health information across different EHRs.²⁷Box 2 provides more details about this program.

Box 2

Our practice has extensive experience with telepsychiatry (Box 3), and for us, the specific costs associated with providing telepsychiatry services include maintenance of infrastructure and the purchase of hardware (eg, computers, smartphones, tablets), a video conferencing application (some free versions are available), EHR systems, and Internet access.

Box 3

Reimbursement for telepsychiatry

Private insurance reimbursement for treatment delivered via telepsychiatry obviously depends on the specific insurance company. Some facilities, such as nursing homes, hospitals, medical clinics, and correctional facilities, offer lump-sum fees to clinicians for providing contracted services. Some clinicians are providing telepsychiatry as direct-bill or concierge services, which require direct payment from the patient without any reimbursement from insurance.

Medicare Part B covers some telepsychiatry services, but only under certain conditions.²⁸ Previously, reimbursement was limited to services provided to patients who live in rural areas. However, on November 1, 2019, eligibility for telehealth services for Medicare Advantage (MA) recipients was expanded to include patients in both urban and rural locations. Patients covered by MA also can receive telehealth services from their home, instead of having to drive to a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services–qualified telehealth service center.

Continue to: Medicaid is the single...

Medicaid is the single largest payer for mental health services in the United States,²⁹ and all Medicaid programs reimburse for some telepsychiatry services. As with all Medicaid health care, fees paid for telepsychiatry are state-specific. Since 2013, several state Medicaid programs, including New York,³⁰ have expanded the list of eligible telehealth sites to include schools, thereby giving children virtual access to mental health clinicians.

Getting started

Clinicians who are interested in starting to provide treatment via telepsychiatry can begin by reviewing the American Psychiatric Association’s Telepsychiatry Toolkit at www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit. This toolkit, which is being continually updated, features numerous training videos for clinicians new to telepsychiatry, such as Learning To Do Telemental Health (www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/learning-telemental-health) and The Credentialing Process (www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/credentialing-process). Before starting, also consider reviewing the steps listed in Table 2.

Bottom Line

Evidence suggests telepsychiatry can be beneficial for a wide range of patient populations and settings. Most patients accept its use, and some actually prefer it to face-to-face care. Telepsychiatry may be especially useful for patients who have limited access to psychiatric treatment, such as those who live in rural areas. Factors to consider before incorporating telepsychiatry into your practice include addressing various legal, technological, and financial requirements.

Related Resources

• Von Hafften A. Telepsychiatry practice guidelines. American Psychiatric Association. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/telepsychiatry/toolkit/practice-guidelines.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Telehealth and telemedicine: a research anthology of law and policy resources. https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/anthologies/anthologies-telehealth.html. Reviewed July 31, 2019.
• American Telemedicine Association. https://www.americantelemed.org/.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Unprecedented circumstances, extra­ordinary times, continental shift, life-altering experience—the descriptions of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been endless, and accurate. Every clinician who has cared for patients during these trying times has noticed new patterns in patient behavior. Psychiatrists are acutely aware of the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive methods that patients are using to protect themselves from the chaos around them, and the ways in which they process a societal catastrophe such as COVID-19 (Figure). Here are some new patterns I have noticed among my own patients.

Physical and emotional separation

I first noticed the changes in my patients’ behavior at the front desk, where they now spend less time talking with the staff. They bring their own pens for filling out the paperwork, avoid touching items around them, and try to keep social interactions brief and to the point. Patients have been more cooperative about scheduling and rescheduling their appointments. They have generally been nicer to the staff, frequently thanking us for the work we do, and verbalizing their support for health care professionals in general.

Patients have been more supportive of their family members and other patients in the clinic, with some noticeable exceptions, such as maintaining social distancing for their own comfort and safety. Some patients wear face masks not just for safety but also to separate themselves and hide their emotions from the world. This allows them to feel more emotionally secure when interacting with other people.

The use of telehealth has given many patients the security of not having to leave their home, and the decreased need for travel adds to their comfort.

Changes I didn’t expect

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in some unexpected changes in my patients. Only a minority of my patients have expressed increased anxiety, while most have become less anxious overall on issues other than the pandemic. Many of my patients who have stressful jobs, especially teachers, say they feel more comfortable working from home and have less anxiety and depression because they are removed from their daily stressors. There also has been an increase in patients’ use of humor, including inappropriate humor, to defend against their fear of COVID-19.

Our clinic is a multidisciplinary facility that specializes in integrating mental and physical health treatments for pain, and for some patients, increased anxiety is clearly associated with an increase in pain. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients have recognized this connection and verbalized their concerns. Some somatic patients have had a decrease in their physical symptoms, including chronic pain, because they see that the whole world is not well, which somehow helps to validate their concerns.

The changes in our patients’ psychological well-being will likely continue to morph as we enter a more stable period. The eventual resolution of the pandemic will bring further changes to our patients’ emotional lives. As we go through these times together, we will continue to uncover new ways that our patients will use to defend themselves against stress and adversities.

Unprecedented circumstances, extra­ordinary times, continental shift, life-altering experience—the descriptions of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been endless, and accurate. Every clinician who has cared for patients during these trying times has noticed new patterns in patient behavior. Psychiatrists are acutely aware of the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive methods that patients are using to protect themselves from the chaos around them, and the ways in which they process a societal catastrophe such as COVID-19 (Figure). Here are some new patterns I have noticed among my own patients.

Physical and emotional separation

I first noticed the changes in my patients’ behavior at the front desk, where they now spend less time talking with the staff. They bring their own pens for filling out the paperwork, avoid touching items around them, and try to keep social interactions brief and to the point. Patients have been more cooperative about scheduling and rescheduling their appointments. They have generally been nicer to the staff, frequently thanking us for the work we do, and verbalizing their support for health care professionals in general.

Patients have been more supportive of their family members and other patients in the clinic, with some noticeable exceptions, such as maintaining social distancing for their own comfort and safety. Some patients wear face masks not just for safety but also to separate themselves and hide their emotions from the world. This allows them to feel more emotionally secure when interacting with other people.

The use of telehealth has given many patients the security of not having to leave their home, and the decreased need for travel adds to their comfort.

Changes I didn’t expect

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in some unexpected changes in my patients. Only a minority of my patients have expressed increased anxiety, while most have become less anxious overall on issues other than the pandemic. Many of my patients who have stressful jobs, especially teachers, say they feel more comfortable working from home and have less anxiety and depression because they are removed from their daily stressors. There also has been an increase in patients’ use of humor, including inappropriate humor, to defend against their fear of COVID-19.

Our clinic is a multidisciplinary facility that specializes in integrating mental and physical health treatments for pain, and for some patients, increased anxiety is clearly associated with an increase in pain. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients have recognized this connection and verbalized their concerns. Some somatic patients have had a decrease in their physical symptoms, including chronic pain, because they see that the whole world is not well, which somehow helps to validate their concerns.

The changes in our patients’ psychological well-being will likely continue to morph as we enter a more stable period. The eventual resolution of the pandemic will bring further changes to our patients’ emotional lives. As we go through these times together, we will continue to uncover new ways that our patients will use to defend themselves against stress and adversities.

Unprecedented circumstances, extra­ordinary times, continental shift, life-altering experience—the descriptions of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been endless, and accurate. Every clinician who has cared for patients during these trying times has noticed new patterns in patient behavior. Psychiatrists are acutely aware of the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive methods that patients are using to protect themselves from the chaos around them, and the ways in which they process a societal catastrophe such as COVID-19 (Figure). Here are some new patterns I have noticed among my own patients.

Physical and emotional separation

I first noticed the changes in my patients’ behavior at the front desk, where they now spend less time talking with the staff. They bring their own pens for filling out the paperwork, avoid touching items around them, and try to keep social interactions brief and to the point. Patients have been more cooperative about scheduling and rescheduling their appointments. They have generally been nicer to the staff, frequently thanking us for the work we do, and verbalizing their support for health care professionals in general.

Patients have been more supportive of their family members and other patients in the clinic, with some noticeable exceptions, such as maintaining social distancing for their own comfort and safety. Some patients wear face masks not just for safety but also to separate themselves and hide their emotions from the world. This allows them to feel more emotionally secure when interacting with other people.

The use of telehealth has given many patients the security of not having to leave their home, and the decreased need for travel adds to their comfort.

Changes I didn’t expect

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in some unexpected changes in my patients. Only a minority of my patients have expressed increased anxiety, while most have become less anxious overall on issues other than the pandemic. Many of my patients who have stressful jobs, especially teachers, say they feel more comfortable working from home and have less anxiety and depression because they are removed from their daily stressors. There also has been an increase in patients’ use of humor, including inappropriate humor, to defend against their fear of COVID-19.

Our clinic is a multidisciplinary facility that specializes in integrating mental and physical health treatments for pain, and for some patients, increased anxiety is clearly associated with an increase in pain. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients have recognized this connection and verbalized their concerns. Some somatic patients have had a decrease in their physical symptoms, including chronic pain, because they see that the whole world is not well, which somehow helps to validate their concerns.

The changes in our patients’ psychological well-being will likely continue to morph as we enter a more stable period. The eventual resolution of the pandemic will bring further changes to our patients’ emotional lives. As we go through these times together, we will continue to uncover new ways that our patients will use to defend themselves against stress and adversities.