User login
COVID-19: Addressing the mental health needs of clinicians
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
Excess cancer deaths predicted as care is disrupted by COVID-19
The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.
As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.
The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)
“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.
“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.
The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.
Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.
Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”
“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.
“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.
“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.
In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”
“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.
“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.
Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance
For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.
The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.
Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.
On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.
PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.
Comorbidities Common
“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.
For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.
“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.
“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.
“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.
Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.
As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.
The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)
“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.
“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.
The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.
Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.
Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”
“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.
“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.
“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.
In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”
“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.
“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.
Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance
For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.
The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.
Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.
On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.
PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.
Comorbidities Common
“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.
For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.
“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.
“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.
“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.
Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.
As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.
The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)
“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.
“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.
The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.
Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.
Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”
“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.
“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.
“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.
In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”
“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.
“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.
Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance
For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.
The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.
Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.
On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.
PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.
Comorbidities Common
“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.
For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.
“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.
“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.
“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.
Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19: A ‘marathon, not a sprint’ for psychiatry
The tragic death by suicide of an emergency department physician who had been caring for COVID-19 patients in New York City underscores the huge psychological impact of the pandemic – which will linger long after the virus is gone, experts say.
“For frontline responders, the trauma of witnessing so much illness and death will have lasting effects for many,” Bruce Schwartz, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), said during the opening session of the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event, replacing the organization’s canceled annual meeting.
“We will need the full workforce to cope with the psychiatric effects” of the pandemic, added Dr. Schwartz, deputy chairman and professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, led an afternoon session at the virtual meeting on “healthcare worker and organizational sustainment during COVID-19.”
The crisis is shaping up to be “a marathon, not a sprint; and self-care will remain a critical and ongoing issue. We are in this together,” he said.
Once the pandemic passes, Dr. Morganstein added.
Psychological first aid
It is important to realize that the psychological and behavioral effects of disasters are experienced by “more people, over a greater geography, across a much longer period of time than all other medical effects combined. This is important for disaster resource planning,” Dr. Morganstein told meeting attendees.
At times of crisis, many people will experience distress reactions and engage in behaviors that put their health at risk. Insomnia, increased alcohol and substance use, and family conflict are common and have a negative impact on functioning, he said.
In addition, pandemics result in unique responses. Protracted fear and uncertainty, elements of isolation, anger, misinformation, and faltering confidence in government/institutions may alter perceptions of risk.
“It’s the perception of risk, not the actual risk, that will ultimately determine how people behave,” Dr. Morganstein said.
“The ability to influence risk perception will alter the degree to which any group, community, or population ultimately chooses to engage in or reject recommended health behaviors,” he added.
In times of crisis, it’s also helpful to keep in mind and act upon the five essential elements of “psychological first aid,” he noted. These are safety, calming, self/community efficacy, social connectedness, and hope/optimism.
Psychological first aid is an evidence-based framework of supporting resilience in individuals, communities, and organizations, Dr. Morganstein said.
Individuals have a wide range of needs during times of crisis, and support should be tailored accordingly, he noted. As with many crises, instrumental support needs are significant and may be the primary need for many people. These include the need for food, clothing, rent/mortgage, financial relief, and child care.
Providing emotional support – empathy, validation, self-actualization, encouragement, and insight – will help individuals engage with instrumental supports.
“The reality is that it’s often difficult to talk about being sad when you feel hungry or worried you can’t pay the rent,” said Dr. Morganstein.
He also emphasized the importance of appropriate messaging and language during a crisis. These can have a profound impact on community well-being and the willingness of the public to engage in recommended health behaviors.
“As psychiatrists, we understand [that] the words we choose when we discuss this pandemic will have power. Communication is not only a means by which we deliver interventions, but it is, in and of itself, a behavioral health intervention. Good communication can serve to normalize experiences and function as an antidote to distress during times of uncertainty,” Dr. Morganstein said.
Importantly, “we need to remind people that eventually this will end and the vast majority of people, including those who have difficulties along the way, will ultimately be okay.”
The APA has provided a COVID-19 resource page on its website.
Dr. Morganstein and Dr. Schwartz have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The tragic death by suicide of an emergency department physician who had been caring for COVID-19 patients in New York City underscores the huge psychological impact of the pandemic – which will linger long after the virus is gone, experts say.
“For frontline responders, the trauma of witnessing so much illness and death will have lasting effects for many,” Bruce Schwartz, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), said during the opening session of the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event, replacing the organization’s canceled annual meeting.
“We will need the full workforce to cope with the psychiatric effects” of the pandemic, added Dr. Schwartz, deputy chairman and professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, led an afternoon session at the virtual meeting on “healthcare worker and organizational sustainment during COVID-19.”
The crisis is shaping up to be “a marathon, not a sprint; and self-care will remain a critical and ongoing issue. We are in this together,” he said.
Once the pandemic passes, Dr. Morganstein added.
Psychological first aid
It is important to realize that the psychological and behavioral effects of disasters are experienced by “more people, over a greater geography, across a much longer period of time than all other medical effects combined. This is important for disaster resource planning,” Dr. Morganstein told meeting attendees.
At times of crisis, many people will experience distress reactions and engage in behaviors that put their health at risk. Insomnia, increased alcohol and substance use, and family conflict are common and have a negative impact on functioning, he said.
In addition, pandemics result in unique responses. Protracted fear and uncertainty, elements of isolation, anger, misinformation, and faltering confidence in government/institutions may alter perceptions of risk.
“It’s the perception of risk, not the actual risk, that will ultimately determine how people behave,” Dr. Morganstein said.
“The ability to influence risk perception will alter the degree to which any group, community, or population ultimately chooses to engage in or reject recommended health behaviors,” he added.
In times of crisis, it’s also helpful to keep in mind and act upon the five essential elements of “psychological first aid,” he noted. These are safety, calming, self/community efficacy, social connectedness, and hope/optimism.
Psychological first aid is an evidence-based framework of supporting resilience in individuals, communities, and organizations, Dr. Morganstein said.
Individuals have a wide range of needs during times of crisis, and support should be tailored accordingly, he noted. As with many crises, instrumental support needs are significant and may be the primary need for many people. These include the need for food, clothing, rent/mortgage, financial relief, and child care.
Providing emotional support – empathy, validation, self-actualization, encouragement, and insight – will help individuals engage with instrumental supports.
“The reality is that it’s often difficult to talk about being sad when you feel hungry or worried you can’t pay the rent,” said Dr. Morganstein.
He also emphasized the importance of appropriate messaging and language during a crisis. These can have a profound impact on community well-being and the willingness of the public to engage in recommended health behaviors.
“As psychiatrists, we understand [that] the words we choose when we discuss this pandemic will have power. Communication is not only a means by which we deliver interventions, but it is, in and of itself, a behavioral health intervention. Good communication can serve to normalize experiences and function as an antidote to distress during times of uncertainty,” Dr. Morganstein said.
Importantly, “we need to remind people that eventually this will end and the vast majority of people, including those who have difficulties along the way, will ultimately be okay.”
The APA has provided a COVID-19 resource page on its website.
Dr. Morganstein and Dr. Schwartz have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The tragic death by suicide of an emergency department physician who had been caring for COVID-19 patients in New York City underscores the huge psychological impact of the pandemic – which will linger long after the virus is gone, experts say.
“For frontline responders, the trauma of witnessing so much illness and death will have lasting effects for many,” Bruce Schwartz, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), said during the opening session of the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event, replacing the organization’s canceled annual meeting.
“We will need the full workforce to cope with the psychiatric effects” of the pandemic, added Dr. Schwartz, deputy chairman and professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, led an afternoon session at the virtual meeting on “healthcare worker and organizational sustainment during COVID-19.”
The crisis is shaping up to be “a marathon, not a sprint; and self-care will remain a critical and ongoing issue. We are in this together,” he said.
Once the pandemic passes, Dr. Morganstein added.
Psychological first aid
It is important to realize that the psychological and behavioral effects of disasters are experienced by “more people, over a greater geography, across a much longer period of time than all other medical effects combined. This is important for disaster resource planning,” Dr. Morganstein told meeting attendees.
At times of crisis, many people will experience distress reactions and engage in behaviors that put their health at risk. Insomnia, increased alcohol and substance use, and family conflict are common and have a negative impact on functioning, he said.
In addition, pandemics result in unique responses. Protracted fear and uncertainty, elements of isolation, anger, misinformation, and faltering confidence in government/institutions may alter perceptions of risk.
“It’s the perception of risk, not the actual risk, that will ultimately determine how people behave,” Dr. Morganstein said.
“The ability to influence risk perception will alter the degree to which any group, community, or population ultimately chooses to engage in or reject recommended health behaviors,” he added.
In times of crisis, it’s also helpful to keep in mind and act upon the five essential elements of “psychological first aid,” he noted. These are safety, calming, self/community efficacy, social connectedness, and hope/optimism.
Psychological first aid is an evidence-based framework of supporting resilience in individuals, communities, and organizations, Dr. Morganstein said.
Individuals have a wide range of needs during times of crisis, and support should be tailored accordingly, he noted. As with many crises, instrumental support needs are significant and may be the primary need for many people. These include the need for food, clothing, rent/mortgage, financial relief, and child care.
Providing emotional support – empathy, validation, self-actualization, encouragement, and insight – will help individuals engage with instrumental supports.
“The reality is that it’s often difficult to talk about being sad when you feel hungry or worried you can’t pay the rent,” said Dr. Morganstein.
He also emphasized the importance of appropriate messaging and language during a crisis. These can have a profound impact on community well-being and the willingness of the public to engage in recommended health behaviors.
“As psychiatrists, we understand [that] the words we choose when we discuss this pandemic will have power. Communication is not only a means by which we deliver interventions, but it is, in and of itself, a behavioral health intervention. Good communication can serve to normalize experiences and function as an antidote to distress during times of uncertainty,” Dr. Morganstein said.
Importantly, “we need to remind people that eventually this will end and the vast majority of people, including those who have difficulties along the way, will ultimately be okay.”
The APA has provided a COVID-19 resource page on its website.
Dr. Morganstein and Dr. Schwartz have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM APA 2020
New study of diabetes drug for COVID-19 raises eyebrows
A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.
The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).
“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.
“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.
However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.
These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.
Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”
Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”
It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.
Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.
“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.
“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.
“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.
Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.
“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.
Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”
DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined
The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.
Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.
Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.
Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.
Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.
Rationale for the study
Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.
Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”
“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.
“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.
And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.
“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.
The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.
Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.
The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).
“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.
“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.
However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.
These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.
Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”
Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”
It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.
Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.
“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.
“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.
“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.
Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.
“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.
Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”
DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined
The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.
Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.
Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.
Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.
Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.
Rationale for the study
Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.
Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”
“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.
“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.
And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.
“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.
The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.
Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.
The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).
“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.
“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.
However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.
These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.
Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”
Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”
It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.
Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.
“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.
“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.
“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.
Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.
“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.
Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”
DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined
The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.
Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.
Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.
Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.
Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.
Rationale for the study
Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.
Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”
“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.
“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.
And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.
“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.
The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.
Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Case series suggests biologics, JAK inhibitors safe during pandemic
Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.
“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.
There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.
Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.
Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.
A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.
Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.
Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).
It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.
Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.
Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.
The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.
As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”
There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.
aotto@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.
Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.
“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.
There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.
Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.
Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.
A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.
Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.
Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).
It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.
Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.
Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.
The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.
As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”
There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.
aotto@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.
Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.
“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.
There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.
Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.
Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.
A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.
Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.
Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).
It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.
Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.
Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.
The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.
As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”
There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.
aotto@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
COVID-19 and pregnancy: Is miscarriage a risk?
- Are you treating pregnant patients with COVID-19? Take this brief survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CDZ7VFK
- Enroll your patients in PRIORITY: Pregnancy Coronavirus Outcomes Registry
- Second-Trimester Miscarriage in a Pregnant Woman With SARS-CoV-2 Infection JAMA. April 30, 2020
- Are you treating pregnant patients with COVID-19? Take this brief survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CDZ7VFK
- Enroll your patients in PRIORITY: Pregnancy Coronavirus Outcomes Registry
- Second-Trimester Miscarriage in a Pregnant Woman With SARS-CoV-2 Infection JAMA. April 30, 2020
- Are you treating pregnant patients with COVID-19? Take this brief survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CDZ7VFK
- Enroll your patients in PRIORITY: Pregnancy Coronavirus Outcomes Registry
- Second-Trimester Miscarriage in a Pregnant Woman With SARS-CoV-2 Infection JAMA. April 30, 2020
Antitumor treatment may increase risk of severe events in COVID-19 patients
Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.
Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.
However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.
Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.
The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.
The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
COVID-19 treatment
Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.
For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).
Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).
“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
Outcomes
In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).
A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.
Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).
By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.
Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
Factors associated with severe events
In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).
However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.
Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors
Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.
This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).
In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.
Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”
Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.
Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.
Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.
However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.
Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.
The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.
The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
COVID-19 treatment
Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.
For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).
Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).
“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
Outcomes
In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).
A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.
Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).
By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.
Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
Factors associated with severe events
In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).
However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.
Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors
Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.
This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).
In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.
Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”
Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.
Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.
Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.
However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.
Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.
The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.
The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
COVID-19 treatment
Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.
For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).
Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).
“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
Outcomes
In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).
A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.
Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).
By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.
Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
Factors associated with severe events
In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).
However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.
Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors
Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.
This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).
In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.
Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”
Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.
FROM AACR 2020
COVID-19 in the era of loneliness
The natural state of human beings is to live together and function as organized groups. The beginnings of communities have primeval origins; evolutionarily, societies that worked together were more productive, efficient and—probably most important—safer. Thousands of years of evolution have ingrained these behaviors as part of our genetic constitution and developmental process. Social integration and acceptance thus are an integral part of basic human behavior and provide a sense of protection, pleasure, and purpose in life.
Unfortunately, the social isolation necessary to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is preventing this integration, and is likely to worsen what some have called an epidemic of loneliness. As mental health clinicians, we need to use technology to strengthen our patients’ social support systems.
Loneliness: A growing problem
Changes in society over the last few decades have led to increased isolation. In the last 50 years, there has been a rise in single-person households in the United States. This is most common in large cities, where the prevalence is approximately 40%.1 The average number of confidants or the size of an American’s social network reduced by more than one-third from 1985 to 2009.2 In a study published in 2018, the health service company Cigna used the UCLA Loneliness Scale to survey >20,000 American adults.3 Nearly half of respondents reported always feeling alone (46%) or left out (47%), and individuals age 18 to 22 were the loneliest age group and claimed to be in worse health than older age groups. Furthermore, the results suggested that people who felt lonelier were more likely to have poor sleep and be less physically active. Americans who lived with others were less likely to report feeling lonely, except for single parents living only with their children. The results also showed that people who engage in meaningful interactions with others had lower loneliness scores and perceived that they were in better overall health.3
Studies have consistently demonstrated a link between loneliness and health problems such as cardiovascular disease, substance use disorders (SUDs), and mood disorders. A 2010 meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies with 308,849 participants found that the influence of social relationships on the risk of mortality is comparable to well-established risk factors for mortality such as smoking and alcohol consumption.4 These findings were confirmed in a 2015 meta-analysis that included 70 studies with 3.4 million participants followed for an average of 7 years. 5
Loneliness has been identified as a social determinant of health and is considered by many to be epidemic in proportion in developed countries. According to a 2019 Business Insider survey, almost 20% of US health care leaders planned to address social isolation in the next 12 months.6
Increased vulnerability during COVID-19 isolation
The forced quarantines and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 crisis are likely to further exacerbate the loneliness epidemic. Hopefully, this increased isolation will not last more than several months, and its effect on chronic medical illnesses will be minor. However, for patients with mental illness, this further isolation, in conjunction with rising societal anxiety and fear of the potentially devastating financial consequences, could worsen their illness, and might even lead to suicidal ideation or behavior.
Individuals with SUDs are particularly vulnerable to the social limitations required by COVID-19. While social isolation is essential to limit the spread of COVID-19, this restriction poses unique challenges for these patients because connection and social support are important aspects of achieving and maintaining sobriety.7
Continue to: A call to action
A call to action
As mental health clinicians, we need to proactively engage with our patients to develop a plan to strengthen their social support systems. This may mean suggesting that they stay in contact with their network of people via video conferencing or by using the phone. We need to identify high-risk patients and continue to provide treatment via telepsychiatry. This is especially necessary to prevent relapse among patients with SUDs or mood disorders, and to minimize the risk of suicide.
We are ethically required to provide an atmosphere of trust, safety, and social inclusion by using resources, such as telehealth, video conferencing, and other online tools, to ameliorate the short- and long-term impact of COVID-19 isolation. Providing avenues that are easily accessible, are supportive, and maintain standards of care are essential. These resources should be implemented as early as possible to avoid negative outcomes regarding both COVID-19 and mental health.
There is also a significant risk that once circumstances improve, there will be a surge in the number of patients seeking a higher level of mental health care. Our actions and preparedness today will define the trajectory of our patients’ mental health in the future, potentially for years to come. While presently we are forced to be reactive, hopefully what is borne out of this crisis will translate into proactive measures for future crises.
Let this brief commentary serve as a call to action. As society finds ways to work from home, mental health clinicians need to lead the charge to use these same technologies to increase our patients’ social interactions. If we do not find ways to address the mental health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, who will? We are all part of the mental health community, and we need to continue to function as an organized group, as has been the natural state of human beings for thousands of years.
Bottom Line
The social isolation required to limit the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is likely to increase loneliness, particularly among vulnerable patients with mood disorders and/or substance use disorders. As mental health clinicians, we need to work to strengthen our patients’ social support systems using resources such as video conferencing and other technologies.
Related Resources
- Cacioppo S, Grippo AJ, London S, et al. Loneliness: clinical import and interventions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):238-249.
- Geriatric loneliness with Dr. Steven Wengel. Psychcast (podcast). https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/psychcast/geriatricloneliness-dr-steven-wengel. Published April 1, 2020.
1. Howe N. Millennials and the loneliness epidemic. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2019/05/03/millennials-and-the-loneliness-epidemic/. Published May 3, 2019. Accessed April 10, 2020.
2. The Economist. All the lonely people: loneliness is a serious public-health problem. https://www.economist.com/international/2018/09/01/loneliness-is-a-serious-public-health-problem. Published September 1, 2018. Accessed April 10, 2020.
3. Cigna. New Cigna study reveals loneliness at epidemic levels in America. https://www.cigna.com/newsroom/news-releases/2018/new-cigna-study-reveals-loneliness-at-epidemic-levels-in-america. Published May 1, 2018. Accessed April 10, 2020.
4. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000316.
5. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, et al. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):227-237.
6. Finley D. How increased social distancing for the coronavirus could spur a loneliness epidemic. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-could-spur-loneliness-epidemic-2020-3. Published March 16, 2020. Accessed April 10, 2020.
7. Roy L. Addiction treatment facilities: are they prepared for the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lipiroy/2020/03/16/addiction-treatment-facilities-are-they-prepared-for-covid-19/#555149b544ea. Published March 16, 2020. Accessed April 10, 2020.
The natural state of human beings is to live together and function as organized groups. The beginnings of communities have primeval origins; evolutionarily, societies that worked together were more productive, efficient and—probably most important—safer. Thousands of years of evolution have ingrained these behaviors as part of our genetic constitution and developmental process. Social integration and acceptance thus are an integral part of basic human behavior and provide a sense of protection, pleasure, and purpose in life.
Unfortunately, the social isolation necessary to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is preventing this integration, and is likely to worsen what some have called an epidemic of loneliness. As mental health clinicians, we need to use technology to strengthen our patients’ social support systems.
Loneliness: A growing problem
Changes in society over the last few decades have led to increased isolation. In the last 50 years, there has been a rise in single-person households in the United States. This is most common in large cities, where the prevalence is approximately 40%.1 The average number of confidants or the size of an American’s social network reduced by more than one-third from 1985 to 2009.2 In a study published in 2018, the health service company Cigna used the UCLA Loneliness Scale to survey >20,000 American adults.3 Nearly half of respondents reported always feeling alone (46%) or left out (47%), and individuals age 18 to 22 were the loneliest age group and claimed to be in worse health than older age groups. Furthermore, the results suggested that people who felt lonelier were more likely to have poor sleep and be less physically active. Americans who lived with others were less likely to report feeling lonely, except for single parents living only with their children. The results also showed that people who engage in meaningful interactions with others had lower loneliness scores and perceived that they were in better overall health.3
Studies have consistently demonstrated a link between loneliness and health problems such as cardiovascular disease, substance use disorders (SUDs), and mood disorders. A 2010 meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies with 308,849 participants found that the influence of social relationships on the risk of mortality is comparable to well-established risk factors for mortality such as smoking and alcohol consumption.4 These findings were confirmed in a 2015 meta-analysis that included 70 studies with 3.4 million participants followed for an average of 7 years. 5
Loneliness has been identified as a social determinant of health and is considered by many to be epidemic in proportion in developed countries. According to a 2019 Business Insider survey, almost 20% of US health care leaders planned to address social isolation in the next 12 months.6
Increased vulnerability during COVID-19 isolation
The forced quarantines and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 crisis are likely to further exacerbate the loneliness epidemic. Hopefully, this increased isolation will not last more than several months, and its effect on chronic medical illnesses will be minor. However, for patients with mental illness, this further isolation, in conjunction with rising societal anxiety and fear of the potentially devastating financial consequences, could worsen their illness, and might even lead to suicidal ideation or behavior.
Individuals with SUDs are particularly vulnerable to the social limitations required by COVID-19. While social isolation is essential to limit the spread of COVID-19, this restriction poses unique challenges for these patients because connection and social support are important aspects of achieving and maintaining sobriety.7
Continue to: A call to action
A call to action
As mental health clinicians, we need to proactively engage with our patients to develop a plan to strengthen their social support systems. This may mean suggesting that they stay in contact with their network of people via video conferencing or by using the phone. We need to identify high-risk patients and continue to provide treatment via telepsychiatry. This is especially necessary to prevent relapse among patients with SUDs or mood disorders, and to minimize the risk of suicide.
We are ethically required to provide an atmosphere of trust, safety, and social inclusion by using resources, such as telehealth, video conferencing, and other online tools, to ameliorate the short- and long-term impact of COVID-19 isolation. Providing avenues that are easily accessible, are supportive, and maintain standards of care are essential. These resources should be implemented as early as possible to avoid negative outcomes regarding both COVID-19 and mental health.
There is also a significant risk that once circumstances improve, there will be a surge in the number of patients seeking a higher level of mental health care. Our actions and preparedness today will define the trajectory of our patients’ mental health in the future, potentially for years to come. While presently we are forced to be reactive, hopefully what is borne out of this crisis will translate into proactive measures for future crises.
Let this brief commentary serve as a call to action. As society finds ways to work from home, mental health clinicians need to lead the charge to use these same technologies to increase our patients’ social interactions. If we do not find ways to address the mental health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, who will? We are all part of the mental health community, and we need to continue to function as an organized group, as has been the natural state of human beings for thousands of years.
Bottom Line
The social isolation required to limit the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is likely to increase loneliness, particularly among vulnerable patients with mood disorders and/or substance use disorders. As mental health clinicians, we need to work to strengthen our patients’ social support systems using resources such as video conferencing and other technologies.
Related Resources
- Cacioppo S, Grippo AJ, London S, et al. Loneliness: clinical import and interventions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):238-249.
- Geriatric loneliness with Dr. Steven Wengel. Psychcast (podcast). https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/psychcast/geriatricloneliness-dr-steven-wengel. Published April 1, 2020.
The natural state of human beings is to live together and function as organized groups. The beginnings of communities have primeval origins; evolutionarily, societies that worked together were more productive, efficient and—probably most important—safer. Thousands of years of evolution have ingrained these behaviors as part of our genetic constitution and developmental process. Social integration and acceptance thus are an integral part of basic human behavior and provide a sense of protection, pleasure, and purpose in life.
Unfortunately, the social isolation necessary to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is preventing this integration, and is likely to worsen what some have called an epidemic of loneliness. As mental health clinicians, we need to use technology to strengthen our patients’ social support systems.
Loneliness: A growing problem
Changes in society over the last few decades have led to increased isolation. In the last 50 years, there has been a rise in single-person households in the United States. This is most common in large cities, where the prevalence is approximately 40%.1 The average number of confidants or the size of an American’s social network reduced by more than one-third from 1985 to 2009.2 In a study published in 2018, the health service company Cigna used the UCLA Loneliness Scale to survey >20,000 American adults.3 Nearly half of respondents reported always feeling alone (46%) or left out (47%), and individuals age 18 to 22 were the loneliest age group and claimed to be in worse health than older age groups. Furthermore, the results suggested that people who felt lonelier were more likely to have poor sleep and be less physically active. Americans who lived with others were less likely to report feeling lonely, except for single parents living only with their children. The results also showed that people who engage in meaningful interactions with others had lower loneliness scores and perceived that they were in better overall health.3
Studies have consistently demonstrated a link between loneliness and health problems such as cardiovascular disease, substance use disorders (SUDs), and mood disorders. A 2010 meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies with 308,849 participants found that the influence of social relationships on the risk of mortality is comparable to well-established risk factors for mortality such as smoking and alcohol consumption.4 These findings were confirmed in a 2015 meta-analysis that included 70 studies with 3.4 million participants followed for an average of 7 years. 5
Loneliness has been identified as a social determinant of health and is considered by many to be epidemic in proportion in developed countries. According to a 2019 Business Insider survey, almost 20% of US health care leaders planned to address social isolation in the next 12 months.6
Increased vulnerability during COVID-19 isolation
The forced quarantines and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 crisis are likely to further exacerbate the loneliness epidemic. Hopefully, this increased isolation will not last more than several months, and its effect on chronic medical illnesses will be minor. However, for patients with mental illness, this further isolation, in conjunction with rising societal anxiety and fear of the potentially devastating financial consequences, could worsen their illness, and might even lead to suicidal ideation or behavior.
Individuals with SUDs are particularly vulnerable to the social limitations required by COVID-19. While social isolation is essential to limit the spread of COVID-19, this restriction poses unique challenges for these patients because connection and social support are important aspects of achieving and maintaining sobriety.7
Continue to: A call to action
A call to action
As mental health clinicians, we need to proactively engage with our patients to develop a plan to strengthen their social support systems. This may mean suggesting that they stay in contact with their network of people via video conferencing or by using the phone. We need to identify high-risk patients and continue to provide treatment via telepsychiatry. This is especially necessary to prevent relapse among patients with SUDs or mood disorders, and to minimize the risk of suicide.
We are ethically required to provide an atmosphere of trust, safety, and social inclusion by using resources, such as telehealth, video conferencing, and other online tools, to ameliorate the short- and long-term impact of COVID-19 isolation. Providing avenues that are easily accessible, are supportive, and maintain standards of care are essential. These resources should be implemented as early as possible to avoid negative outcomes regarding both COVID-19 and mental health.
There is also a significant risk that once circumstances improve, there will be a surge in the number of patients seeking a higher level of mental health care. Our actions and preparedness today will define the trajectory of our patients’ mental health in the future, potentially for years to come. While presently we are forced to be reactive, hopefully what is borne out of this crisis will translate into proactive measures for future crises.
Let this brief commentary serve as a call to action. As society finds ways to work from home, mental health clinicians need to lead the charge to use these same technologies to increase our patients’ social interactions. If we do not find ways to address the mental health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, who will? We are all part of the mental health community, and we need to continue to function as an organized group, as has been the natural state of human beings for thousands of years.
Bottom Line
The social isolation required to limit the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is likely to increase loneliness, particularly among vulnerable patients with mood disorders and/or substance use disorders. As mental health clinicians, we need to work to strengthen our patients’ social support systems using resources such as video conferencing and other technologies.
Related Resources
- Cacioppo S, Grippo AJ, London S, et al. Loneliness: clinical import and interventions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):238-249.
- Geriatric loneliness with Dr. Steven Wengel. Psychcast (podcast). https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/psychcast/geriatricloneliness-dr-steven-wengel. Published April 1, 2020.
1. Howe N. Millennials and the loneliness epidemic. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2019/05/03/millennials-and-the-loneliness-epidemic/. Published May 3, 2019. Accessed April 10, 2020.
2. The Economist. All the lonely people: loneliness is a serious public-health problem. https://www.economist.com/international/2018/09/01/loneliness-is-a-serious-public-health-problem. Published September 1, 2018. Accessed April 10, 2020.
3. Cigna. New Cigna study reveals loneliness at epidemic levels in America. https://www.cigna.com/newsroom/news-releases/2018/new-cigna-study-reveals-loneliness-at-epidemic-levels-in-america. Published May 1, 2018. Accessed April 10, 2020.
4. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000316.
5. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, et al. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):227-237.
6. Finley D. How increased social distancing for the coronavirus could spur a loneliness epidemic. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-could-spur-loneliness-epidemic-2020-3. Published March 16, 2020. Accessed April 10, 2020.
7. Roy L. Addiction treatment facilities: are they prepared for the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lipiroy/2020/03/16/addiction-treatment-facilities-are-they-prepared-for-covid-19/#555149b544ea. Published March 16, 2020. Accessed April 10, 2020.
1. Howe N. Millennials and the loneliness epidemic. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2019/05/03/millennials-and-the-loneliness-epidemic/. Published May 3, 2019. Accessed April 10, 2020.
2. The Economist. All the lonely people: loneliness is a serious public-health problem. https://www.economist.com/international/2018/09/01/loneliness-is-a-serious-public-health-problem. Published September 1, 2018. Accessed April 10, 2020.
3. Cigna. New Cigna study reveals loneliness at epidemic levels in America. https://www.cigna.com/newsroom/news-releases/2018/new-cigna-study-reveals-loneliness-at-epidemic-levels-in-america. Published May 1, 2018. Accessed April 10, 2020.
4. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000316.
5. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, et al. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):227-237.
6. Finley D. How increased social distancing for the coronavirus could spur a loneliness epidemic. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-could-spur-loneliness-epidemic-2020-3. Published March 16, 2020. Accessed April 10, 2020.
7. Roy L. Addiction treatment facilities: are they prepared for the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lipiroy/2020/03/16/addiction-treatment-facilities-are-they-prepared-for-covid-19/#555149b544ea. Published March 16, 2020. Accessed April 10, 2020.
COVID-19: A psychiatry resident’s perspective
During these unprecedented times, venturing into the unknown of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a feeling of impending doom prevails. Almost all of us have been restricted to our homes. Although the physical dimensions of what we call home may vary, the meaning of this restriction is fairly universal. No matter how our sociodemographics differ, with no guidance for this situation from anything even remotely comparable in the past, our lives have been transformed into a work in progress.
During this pandemic, I have observed a wide range of human emotions and behavior—many of them familiar and predictable, some abysmal, and some inspiring.
’Why should I care?’
On December 31, 2019, health officials in China informed the World Health Organization about a pneumonia-like presentation in a group of people in Wuhan. On January 7, 2020, a novel coronavirus was identified as the cause, and the first death was reported a few days later. In the following days and weeks the disease rapidly spread, as did the growing sense that this was not a typical virus.
While these events occurred, the rest of the world was in what I call a ”Why should I care?” mode. Most humans tend to suffer from this indifference. This has been observed repeatedly through the years, such as when the Ebola outbreak occurred in Africa in 2014-2016. It was only when cases started to develop in Europe and the United States that other countries started to pay attention. A similar phenomenon has been observed every time we’ve faced a global outbreak (avian influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome, etc.).
When are we going to learn? It is time to realize that global borders are more porous than we think, and human interactions cannot be blocked by any wall. When a catastrophic event, outbreak, or disaster starts in any part of the world, it is naive to assume that we will not be affected. We will eventually be affected—the only question is how, when, and to what extent? We are always all in this together.
An abundance of ignorance and stupidity
Within a few weeks of the first reports from China, cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, and many other countries. Slowly, COVID-19 reached the United States, which as of mid-April had the highest number of cases worldwide. When COVID-19 hit the United States, the response was that of shock and anger. How could this happen to us? Why is the government not doing anything?
Amidst this pandemonium, ignorance and stupidity of the highest degree were commonplace. This was not restricted to any particular country or region. Almost 2 months into the pandemic, the Ministry of Tourism in my home country of Nepal declared Nepal a ”coronavirus-free zone” and took measures to bring in tourists, focusing specifically on China, where COVID-19 had already killed hundreds. In India, some people were drinking cow urine in hopes of warding off the virus. In the United Sates, thousands of young people flocked to beaches for Spring Break, disregarding measures for social distancing. ”If I get corona, I get corona,” one young man said in an interview that went viral. Personally, I have encountered people who responded to this pandemic by saying the disease was ”cooties” or ”just a flu,” and dismissing it with ”If I die from this, I die.”
Continue to: Rising panic and fear
Rising panic and fear
For most people, seeing COVID-19 at their doorstep triggered a panic, and sent many into a frenzy of buying and hoarding. Once again, we proved that people everywhere are equally stupid, as toilet paper began to vanish from stores across the globe. And yet, this again was a moment when some people began to experience a false sense of immunity: ”I have enough food, money, and toilet paper to last me for 2 years. Why should I be worried?”
When the numbers of COVID-19 deaths in Europe were first reported, the fear became palpable. In Italy and Spain, towns were locked down, and tens of thousands of people (mostly older adults) have died. It was truly heartbreaking to see people alone and at their weakest with no family members allowed to be by their side.
A glimmer of hope
Despite all of this, there were superheroes—the nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, first responders, store workers, restaurant workers, delivery personnel, and others who didn’t have the option of staying home, or who volunteered to help people in need. In moments like this, the actions of these individuals give us hope, reminding us that the human spirit is resilient, and that we will get through this.
A rotation in the emergency department during COVID-19
As a psychiatry resident, it is unlikely that my peers and I face the same risks as our colleagues in other medical specialities. But those of us who happened to be in medical rotations during this time have had the chance to experience this very closely. My personal experience, albeit a brief one, of working in an emergency department with suspected COVID-19 patients has been sobering. Watching nurses and physicians walk into a room wearing personal protective equipment, fearful inside but with a reassuring smile for a scared patient, definitely was one of the most compelling moments of my life. Living in a distant land, with my daughter, wife, parents, and extended family back home in Nepal, has made this even more challenging.
We will overcome this as we have overcome previous challenges in the past. There will be death and chaos, but we will prevail. The only thing is to ask ourselves: How do we want to continue living when this is over?
During these unprecedented times, venturing into the unknown of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a feeling of impending doom prevails. Almost all of us have been restricted to our homes. Although the physical dimensions of what we call home may vary, the meaning of this restriction is fairly universal. No matter how our sociodemographics differ, with no guidance for this situation from anything even remotely comparable in the past, our lives have been transformed into a work in progress.
During this pandemic, I have observed a wide range of human emotions and behavior—many of them familiar and predictable, some abysmal, and some inspiring.
’Why should I care?’
On December 31, 2019, health officials in China informed the World Health Organization about a pneumonia-like presentation in a group of people in Wuhan. On January 7, 2020, a novel coronavirus was identified as the cause, and the first death was reported a few days later. In the following days and weeks the disease rapidly spread, as did the growing sense that this was not a typical virus.
While these events occurred, the rest of the world was in what I call a ”Why should I care?” mode. Most humans tend to suffer from this indifference. This has been observed repeatedly through the years, such as when the Ebola outbreak occurred in Africa in 2014-2016. It was only when cases started to develop in Europe and the United States that other countries started to pay attention. A similar phenomenon has been observed every time we’ve faced a global outbreak (avian influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome, etc.).
When are we going to learn? It is time to realize that global borders are more porous than we think, and human interactions cannot be blocked by any wall. When a catastrophic event, outbreak, or disaster starts in any part of the world, it is naive to assume that we will not be affected. We will eventually be affected—the only question is how, when, and to what extent? We are always all in this together.
An abundance of ignorance and stupidity
Within a few weeks of the first reports from China, cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, and many other countries. Slowly, COVID-19 reached the United States, which as of mid-April had the highest number of cases worldwide. When COVID-19 hit the United States, the response was that of shock and anger. How could this happen to us? Why is the government not doing anything?
Amidst this pandemonium, ignorance and stupidity of the highest degree were commonplace. This was not restricted to any particular country or region. Almost 2 months into the pandemic, the Ministry of Tourism in my home country of Nepal declared Nepal a ”coronavirus-free zone” and took measures to bring in tourists, focusing specifically on China, where COVID-19 had already killed hundreds. In India, some people were drinking cow urine in hopes of warding off the virus. In the United Sates, thousands of young people flocked to beaches for Spring Break, disregarding measures for social distancing. ”If I get corona, I get corona,” one young man said in an interview that went viral. Personally, I have encountered people who responded to this pandemic by saying the disease was ”cooties” or ”just a flu,” and dismissing it with ”If I die from this, I die.”
Continue to: Rising panic and fear
Rising panic and fear
For most people, seeing COVID-19 at their doorstep triggered a panic, and sent many into a frenzy of buying and hoarding. Once again, we proved that people everywhere are equally stupid, as toilet paper began to vanish from stores across the globe. And yet, this again was a moment when some people began to experience a false sense of immunity: ”I have enough food, money, and toilet paper to last me for 2 years. Why should I be worried?”
When the numbers of COVID-19 deaths in Europe were first reported, the fear became palpable. In Italy and Spain, towns were locked down, and tens of thousands of people (mostly older adults) have died. It was truly heartbreaking to see people alone and at their weakest with no family members allowed to be by their side.
A glimmer of hope
Despite all of this, there were superheroes—the nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, first responders, store workers, restaurant workers, delivery personnel, and others who didn’t have the option of staying home, or who volunteered to help people in need. In moments like this, the actions of these individuals give us hope, reminding us that the human spirit is resilient, and that we will get through this.
A rotation in the emergency department during COVID-19
As a psychiatry resident, it is unlikely that my peers and I face the same risks as our colleagues in other medical specialities. But those of us who happened to be in medical rotations during this time have had the chance to experience this very closely. My personal experience, albeit a brief one, of working in an emergency department with suspected COVID-19 patients has been sobering. Watching nurses and physicians walk into a room wearing personal protective equipment, fearful inside but with a reassuring smile for a scared patient, definitely was one of the most compelling moments of my life. Living in a distant land, with my daughter, wife, parents, and extended family back home in Nepal, has made this even more challenging.
We will overcome this as we have overcome previous challenges in the past. There will be death and chaos, but we will prevail. The only thing is to ask ourselves: How do we want to continue living when this is over?
During these unprecedented times, venturing into the unknown of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a feeling of impending doom prevails. Almost all of us have been restricted to our homes. Although the physical dimensions of what we call home may vary, the meaning of this restriction is fairly universal. No matter how our sociodemographics differ, with no guidance for this situation from anything even remotely comparable in the past, our lives have been transformed into a work in progress.
During this pandemic, I have observed a wide range of human emotions and behavior—many of them familiar and predictable, some abysmal, and some inspiring.
’Why should I care?’
On December 31, 2019, health officials in China informed the World Health Organization about a pneumonia-like presentation in a group of people in Wuhan. On January 7, 2020, a novel coronavirus was identified as the cause, and the first death was reported a few days later. In the following days and weeks the disease rapidly spread, as did the growing sense that this was not a typical virus.
While these events occurred, the rest of the world was in what I call a ”Why should I care?” mode. Most humans tend to suffer from this indifference. This has been observed repeatedly through the years, such as when the Ebola outbreak occurred in Africa in 2014-2016. It was only when cases started to develop in Europe and the United States that other countries started to pay attention. A similar phenomenon has been observed every time we’ve faced a global outbreak (avian influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome, etc.).
When are we going to learn? It is time to realize that global borders are more porous than we think, and human interactions cannot be blocked by any wall. When a catastrophic event, outbreak, or disaster starts in any part of the world, it is naive to assume that we will not be affected. We will eventually be affected—the only question is how, when, and to what extent? We are always all in this together.
An abundance of ignorance and stupidity
Within a few weeks of the first reports from China, cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, and many other countries. Slowly, COVID-19 reached the United States, which as of mid-April had the highest number of cases worldwide. When COVID-19 hit the United States, the response was that of shock and anger. How could this happen to us? Why is the government not doing anything?
Amidst this pandemonium, ignorance and stupidity of the highest degree were commonplace. This was not restricted to any particular country or region. Almost 2 months into the pandemic, the Ministry of Tourism in my home country of Nepal declared Nepal a ”coronavirus-free zone” and took measures to bring in tourists, focusing specifically on China, where COVID-19 had already killed hundreds. In India, some people were drinking cow urine in hopes of warding off the virus. In the United Sates, thousands of young people flocked to beaches for Spring Break, disregarding measures for social distancing. ”If I get corona, I get corona,” one young man said in an interview that went viral. Personally, I have encountered people who responded to this pandemic by saying the disease was ”cooties” or ”just a flu,” and dismissing it with ”If I die from this, I die.”
Continue to: Rising panic and fear
Rising panic and fear
For most people, seeing COVID-19 at their doorstep triggered a panic, and sent many into a frenzy of buying and hoarding. Once again, we proved that people everywhere are equally stupid, as toilet paper began to vanish from stores across the globe. And yet, this again was a moment when some people began to experience a false sense of immunity: ”I have enough food, money, and toilet paper to last me for 2 years. Why should I be worried?”
When the numbers of COVID-19 deaths in Europe were first reported, the fear became palpable. In Italy and Spain, towns were locked down, and tens of thousands of people (mostly older adults) have died. It was truly heartbreaking to see people alone and at their weakest with no family members allowed to be by their side.
A glimmer of hope
Despite all of this, there were superheroes—the nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, first responders, store workers, restaurant workers, delivery personnel, and others who didn’t have the option of staying home, or who volunteered to help people in need. In moments like this, the actions of these individuals give us hope, reminding us that the human spirit is resilient, and that we will get through this.
A rotation in the emergency department during COVID-19
As a psychiatry resident, it is unlikely that my peers and I face the same risks as our colleagues in other medical specialities. But those of us who happened to be in medical rotations during this time have had the chance to experience this very closely. My personal experience, albeit a brief one, of working in an emergency department with suspected COVID-19 patients has been sobering. Watching nurses and physicians walk into a room wearing personal protective equipment, fearful inside but with a reassuring smile for a scared patient, definitely was one of the most compelling moments of my life. Living in a distant land, with my daughter, wife, parents, and extended family back home in Nepal, has made this even more challenging.
We will overcome this as we have overcome previous challenges in the past. There will be death and chaos, but we will prevail. The only thing is to ask ourselves: How do we want to continue living when this is over?
Screening for adolescent substance use; Changing routines during COVID-19
Screening for adolescent substance use
I want to congratulate Dr. Verma on her article “Opioid use disorder in adolescents: An overview” (Evidence-Based Reviews,
Because evidence suggests there are continued barriers, such as time constraints, in evaluating for adolescent SUD,1,2 I believe the Screen to Brief Intervention (S2BI) and Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol and Drug (BSTAD) should be included.3,4 The S2BI and BSTAD are brief screeners that assess substance use, are validated for adolescent patients, can be completed online, and can assist in identifying DSM-5 criteria for SUD.
The S2BI has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for identifying SUD.3 The single screening assessment for “past-year use” is quick and can be administered in a variety of clinical settings. The S2BI begins by asking a patient about his/her frequency of tobacco, alcohol, and/or marijuana use in the past year. If the patient endorses past-year use of any of these substances, the S2BI prompts follow-up questions about the use of prescription medications, illicit drugs, inhalants, and herbal products. A patient’s frequency of use is strongly correlated with the likelihood of having a SUD. Adolescents who report using a substance “once or twice” in the past year are very unlikely to have a SUD. Patients who endorse “monthly” use are more likely to meet the criteria for a mild or moderate SUD, and those reporting “weekly or more” use are more likely to have a severe SUD.
The BSTAD is an electronic, validated, high-sensitivity, high-specificity instrument for identifying SUD.1 It asks a single frequency question about past-year use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, which are the most commonly used substances among adolescents. Patients who report using any of these substances are then asked about additional substance use. Based on the patient’s self-report of past year use, the screen places him/her into 1 of 3 risk categories for SUD: no reported use, lower risk, and higher risk. Each risk level maps to suggested clinical actions that are summarized in the results section.
Kevin M. Simon, MD
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Fellow
Boston Children’s Hospital
Clinical Fellow in Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
References
1. Palmer A, Karakus M, Mark T. Barriers faced by physicians in screening for substance use disorders among adolescents. Psychiatr Serv. 2019;70(5):409-412.
2. D’Souza-Li L, Harris SK. The future of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adolescent primary care: research directions and dissemination challenges. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2016;28(4):434-440.
3. Levy S, Weiss R, Sherritt L, et al. An electronic screen for triaging adolescent substance use by risk levels. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(9):822-828.
4. Kelly SM, Gryczynski J, Mitchell SG, et al. Validity of brief screening instrument for adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and drug use. Pediatrics. 2014;133(5):819-826.
Continue to: The author responds
The author responds
I thank Dr. Simon for his words of encouragement. I agree that both the S2BI and BSTAD have high sensitivity and specificity and are easy to use for screening for the use of multiple substances. Once substance use is established, both tools recommend administering high-risk assessment with additional scales such as the CRAFFT. During the initial evaluation, many psychiatrists take their patient’s history of substance use in detail, including age of onset, frequency, amount used, severity, and the time of his/her last use, without using a screening instrument. My article focused on instruments that can determine whether there is need for a further detailed evaluation. I agree that the S2BI and BSTAD would assist psychiatrists or physicians in other specialties (eg, pediatrics, family medicine) who might not take a complete substance use history during their initial evaluations.
Shikha Verma, MD
Rogers Behavioral Health
Kenosha, Wisconsin
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
North Chicago, Illinois
Continue to: Changes as a result of COVID-19
Changes as a result of COVID-19
I thank Dr. Nasrallah for his editorial “During a viral pandemic, anxiety is endemic: The psychiatric aspects of COVID-19” (From the Editor,
I appreciated the editorial because it got me thinking about how the pandemic has changed me and my family:
1. We are engaging more in social media.
2. I feel uncomfortable when I go to the grocery store.
3. I feel better when I don’t access the news about COVID-19.
4. My children need physical socialization with their friends (sports, games, other activities, etc.).
5. My children function better with a schedule, but we find it difficult to keep them on a good schedule. Our teenagers stay up late at night (because all of their friends do), and they sleep in late the next morning.
Here are some positive changes:
1. Creating a weekly family calendar on a dry-erase board, so the family can see what is going on during the week.
2. Creating responsibility for our older children (eg, washing their own clothes, cleaning their bathroom).
3. Eating most meals as a family and organizing meals better, too.
4. Playing games together.
5. Cleaning the house together.
6. Getting outside to walk the dog and appreciate nature more.
7. Exercising.
8. Utilizing positive social media.
9. Getting caught up on life.
Again, I thank Dr. Nasrallah for writing this editorial because it led me to self-reflect on this situation, and helped me feel normal.
Doug Dolenc
Westfield, Indiana
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
Screening for adolescent substance use
I want to congratulate Dr. Verma on her article “Opioid use disorder in adolescents: An overview” (Evidence-Based Reviews,
Because evidence suggests there are continued barriers, such as time constraints, in evaluating for adolescent SUD,1,2 I believe the Screen to Brief Intervention (S2BI) and Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol and Drug (BSTAD) should be included.3,4 The S2BI and BSTAD are brief screeners that assess substance use, are validated for adolescent patients, can be completed online, and can assist in identifying DSM-5 criteria for SUD.
The S2BI has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for identifying SUD.3 The single screening assessment for “past-year use” is quick and can be administered in a variety of clinical settings. The S2BI begins by asking a patient about his/her frequency of tobacco, alcohol, and/or marijuana use in the past year. If the patient endorses past-year use of any of these substances, the S2BI prompts follow-up questions about the use of prescription medications, illicit drugs, inhalants, and herbal products. A patient’s frequency of use is strongly correlated with the likelihood of having a SUD. Adolescents who report using a substance “once or twice” in the past year are very unlikely to have a SUD. Patients who endorse “monthly” use are more likely to meet the criteria for a mild or moderate SUD, and those reporting “weekly or more” use are more likely to have a severe SUD.
The BSTAD is an electronic, validated, high-sensitivity, high-specificity instrument for identifying SUD.1 It asks a single frequency question about past-year use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, which are the most commonly used substances among adolescents. Patients who report using any of these substances are then asked about additional substance use. Based on the patient’s self-report of past year use, the screen places him/her into 1 of 3 risk categories for SUD: no reported use, lower risk, and higher risk. Each risk level maps to suggested clinical actions that are summarized in the results section.
Kevin M. Simon, MD
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Fellow
Boston Children’s Hospital
Clinical Fellow in Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
References
1. Palmer A, Karakus M, Mark T. Barriers faced by physicians in screening for substance use disorders among adolescents. Psychiatr Serv. 2019;70(5):409-412.
2. D’Souza-Li L, Harris SK. The future of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adolescent primary care: research directions and dissemination challenges. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2016;28(4):434-440.
3. Levy S, Weiss R, Sherritt L, et al. An electronic screen for triaging adolescent substance use by risk levels. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(9):822-828.
4. Kelly SM, Gryczynski J, Mitchell SG, et al. Validity of brief screening instrument for adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and drug use. Pediatrics. 2014;133(5):819-826.
Continue to: The author responds
The author responds
I thank Dr. Simon for his words of encouragement. I agree that both the S2BI and BSTAD have high sensitivity and specificity and are easy to use for screening for the use of multiple substances. Once substance use is established, both tools recommend administering high-risk assessment with additional scales such as the CRAFFT. During the initial evaluation, many psychiatrists take their patient’s history of substance use in detail, including age of onset, frequency, amount used, severity, and the time of his/her last use, without using a screening instrument. My article focused on instruments that can determine whether there is need for a further detailed evaluation. I agree that the S2BI and BSTAD would assist psychiatrists or physicians in other specialties (eg, pediatrics, family medicine) who might not take a complete substance use history during their initial evaluations.
Shikha Verma, MD
Rogers Behavioral Health
Kenosha, Wisconsin
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
North Chicago, Illinois
Continue to: Changes as a result of COVID-19
Changes as a result of COVID-19
I thank Dr. Nasrallah for his editorial “During a viral pandemic, anxiety is endemic: The psychiatric aspects of COVID-19” (From the Editor,
I appreciated the editorial because it got me thinking about how the pandemic has changed me and my family:
1. We are engaging more in social media.
2. I feel uncomfortable when I go to the grocery store.
3. I feel better when I don’t access the news about COVID-19.
4. My children need physical socialization with their friends (sports, games, other activities, etc.).
5. My children function better with a schedule, but we find it difficult to keep them on a good schedule. Our teenagers stay up late at night (because all of their friends do), and they sleep in late the next morning.
Here are some positive changes:
1. Creating a weekly family calendar on a dry-erase board, so the family can see what is going on during the week.
2. Creating responsibility for our older children (eg, washing their own clothes, cleaning their bathroom).
3. Eating most meals as a family and organizing meals better, too.
4. Playing games together.
5. Cleaning the house together.
6. Getting outside to walk the dog and appreciate nature more.
7. Exercising.
8. Utilizing positive social media.
9. Getting caught up on life.
Again, I thank Dr. Nasrallah for writing this editorial because it led me to self-reflect on this situation, and helped me feel normal.
Doug Dolenc
Westfield, Indiana
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
Screening for adolescent substance use
I want to congratulate Dr. Verma on her article “Opioid use disorder in adolescents: An overview” (Evidence-Based Reviews,
Because evidence suggests there are continued barriers, such as time constraints, in evaluating for adolescent SUD,1,2 I believe the Screen to Brief Intervention (S2BI) and Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol and Drug (BSTAD) should be included.3,4 The S2BI and BSTAD are brief screeners that assess substance use, are validated for adolescent patients, can be completed online, and can assist in identifying DSM-5 criteria for SUD.
The S2BI has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for identifying SUD.3 The single screening assessment for “past-year use” is quick and can be administered in a variety of clinical settings. The S2BI begins by asking a patient about his/her frequency of tobacco, alcohol, and/or marijuana use in the past year. If the patient endorses past-year use of any of these substances, the S2BI prompts follow-up questions about the use of prescription medications, illicit drugs, inhalants, and herbal products. A patient’s frequency of use is strongly correlated with the likelihood of having a SUD. Adolescents who report using a substance “once or twice” in the past year are very unlikely to have a SUD. Patients who endorse “monthly” use are more likely to meet the criteria for a mild or moderate SUD, and those reporting “weekly or more” use are more likely to have a severe SUD.
The BSTAD is an electronic, validated, high-sensitivity, high-specificity instrument for identifying SUD.1 It asks a single frequency question about past-year use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, which are the most commonly used substances among adolescents. Patients who report using any of these substances are then asked about additional substance use. Based on the patient’s self-report of past year use, the screen places him/her into 1 of 3 risk categories for SUD: no reported use, lower risk, and higher risk. Each risk level maps to suggested clinical actions that are summarized in the results section.
Kevin M. Simon, MD
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Fellow
Boston Children’s Hospital
Clinical Fellow in Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
References
1. Palmer A, Karakus M, Mark T. Barriers faced by physicians in screening for substance use disorders among adolescents. Psychiatr Serv. 2019;70(5):409-412.
2. D’Souza-Li L, Harris SK. The future of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adolescent primary care: research directions and dissemination challenges. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2016;28(4):434-440.
3. Levy S, Weiss R, Sherritt L, et al. An electronic screen for triaging adolescent substance use by risk levels. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(9):822-828.
4. Kelly SM, Gryczynski J, Mitchell SG, et al. Validity of brief screening instrument for adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and drug use. Pediatrics. 2014;133(5):819-826.
Continue to: The author responds
The author responds
I thank Dr. Simon for his words of encouragement. I agree that both the S2BI and BSTAD have high sensitivity and specificity and are easy to use for screening for the use of multiple substances. Once substance use is established, both tools recommend administering high-risk assessment with additional scales such as the CRAFFT. During the initial evaluation, many psychiatrists take their patient’s history of substance use in detail, including age of onset, frequency, amount used, severity, and the time of his/her last use, without using a screening instrument. My article focused on instruments that can determine whether there is need for a further detailed evaluation. I agree that the S2BI and BSTAD would assist psychiatrists or physicians in other specialties (eg, pediatrics, family medicine) who might not take a complete substance use history during their initial evaluations.
Shikha Verma, MD
Rogers Behavioral Health
Kenosha, Wisconsin
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
North Chicago, Illinois
Continue to: Changes as a result of COVID-19
Changes as a result of COVID-19
I thank Dr. Nasrallah for his editorial “During a viral pandemic, anxiety is endemic: The psychiatric aspects of COVID-19” (From the Editor,
I appreciated the editorial because it got me thinking about how the pandemic has changed me and my family:
1. We are engaging more in social media.
2. I feel uncomfortable when I go to the grocery store.
3. I feel better when I don’t access the news about COVID-19.
4. My children need physical socialization with their friends (sports, games, other activities, etc.).
5. My children function better with a schedule, but we find it difficult to keep them on a good schedule. Our teenagers stay up late at night (because all of their friends do), and they sleep in late the next morning.
Here are some positive changes:
1. Creating a weekly family calendar on a dry-erase board, so the family can see what is going on during the week.
2. Creating responsibility for our older children (eg, washing their own clothes, cleaning their bathroom).
3. Eating most meals as a family and organizing meals better, too.
4. Playing games together.
5. Cleaning the house together.
6. Getting outside to walk the dog and appreciate nature more.
7. Exercising.
8. Utilizing positive social media.
9. Getting caught up on life.
Again, I thank Dr. Nasrallah for writing this editorial because it led me to self-reflect on this situation, and helped me feel normal.
Doug Dolenc
Westfield, Indiana
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
