Emergency Medicine

There was no hand sanitizer on the hospital’s psychiatric ward for fear patients would drink it; they slept together on futons in communal rooms and the windows were sealed shut to prevent suicide attempts — all conditions that created the perfect environment for the rapid spread of a potentially deadly virus.

This scenario may sound like a something out of a horror film, but as reported last month by the UK newspaper The Independent, it was the reality in the psychiatric ward of South Korea’s Daenam Hospital after COVID-19 struck. Eventually health officials put the ward on lockdown, but it wasn’t long before all but two of the unit’s 103 patients were positive for the virus.

To avoid a similar catastrophe, staff at an Israeli hospital have created what they describe as the “world’s first” dedicated COVID-19 unit for psychiatric inpatients.

Clinicians at Israel’s national hospital, Sheba Medical Center Tel HaShomer in Tel Aviv, believe the 16-bed unit, which officially opened on March 26, will stop psychiatric inpatients with the virus — who may have trouble with social distancing — from spreading it to others on the ward.

“Psychiatric patients are going to get sick from coronavirus just like anybody else,” Mark Weiser, MD, head of the psychiatric division at the institution told Medscape Medical News. “But we’re concerned that, on a psychiatric ward, a patient who is COVID-19 positive can also be psychotic, manic, cognitively impaired, or have poor judgment … making it difficult for that patient to keep social distancing, and very quickly you’ll have an entire ward of patients infected.

“So the basic public health issue is how to prevent a single psychiatric patient who is hospitalized and COVID-19-positive from making everybody else sick,” he added.
 

Unique Challenges, Rapid Response

Adapting an existing psychiatric ward to one exclusively used by inpatients with COVID-19 required significant planning, coordination, and modifications to ensure the well-being of patients and staff.

First, the ward’s air conditioning system was re-engineered to separate it from the hospital’s main system. A dedicated entrance for the exclusive use of infected psychiatric inpatients was also created.

In addition, two-way television cameras in patients’ rooms were installed to facilitate a constant flow of communication and enable therapeutic sessions and family visits. All of these modifications were completed in under a week.

“Under normal circumstances, we have cameras in the public areas of our wards, but in order to respect people’s privacy, we do not have cameras in their rooms.

“In this specific ward, on the other hand, we did put cameras in the rooms, so if a patient needs to be watched more closely, it could be done remotely without exposing staff to the virus. We have a person who’s watching the screens at all times, just to see what’s going on and see what patients are doing,” said Weiser.

Protective personal equipment (PPE) and clothing for staff was tailored to the unique challenges posed by the ward’s patient population.

“Of course, you need to wear clothes that are protective against the virus,” said Weiser. “But sometimes our patients can get agitated or even violent, so you’ve got protect against that as well.”

With this in mind, all personnel working on the ward must put on an extra layer of PPE as well as a tear-proof robe. The institution has also implemented a strict protocol that dictates the order in which PPE is donned and doffed.

“It’s got to be done in a very careful and very specific way,” said Weiser. “We have all of it organized with a poster that explains what should be taken off or put on, and in what order.”

For institutions considering setting up a similar unit, Weiser said close proximity to an active care hospital with the capacity to provide urgent care is key.

“We’re psychiatrists; we’re not great at treating acute respiratory problems. So patients with significant respiratory problems need a place to get appropriate care quickly,” he said.

In setting up the unit, there were still a few obstacles, Weiser noted. For instance, despite the many protective and safety measures undertaken by the institution, some of the hospital staff were concerned about their risk of contracting the virus.

To address these concerns, the hospital’s leadership brought in infectious disease experts to educate hospital personnel about the virus and transmission risk.

“They told our staff that given all the precautions we had taken, there was very little risk anyone else could become infected,” Weiser said.

Despite the many challenges, Weiser said he and his colleagues are thrilled with the dedicated ward and the positive reception it has received.

“My colleagues and the directors of psychiatric hospitals all around the country are very happy with this because now they’re not hospitalizing infected patients. They’re very happy for us to take care of this,” he said.
 

“No Easy Solutions”

Commenting on the initiative for Medscape Medical News, John M. Oldham, MD, chief of staff at Baylor College of Medicine’s Menninger Clinic in Houston, Texas, raised some questions.

“Is it really going to be the treatment unit or a quarantine unit? Because if you don’t have a comparable level of established, effective treatment for these patients, then you’re simply herding them off to a different place where they’re going to suffer both illnesses,” he cautioned.

Nevertheless, Oldham recognized that the issue of how to treat psychiatric patients who test positive for COVID-19 is complex.

“We’re still wrestling with that question here at Menninger. We have created an enclosed section of the inpatient area reserved for this possibility.

“If we have a patient who tests positive, we will immediately put that patient in one of these rooms in the quarantine section. Then we will use protective equipment for our staff to go and provide care for the patient,” he said.

However, he acknowledged that a psychiatric hospital is in no position to treat patients who develop severe illness from COVID-19.

“We’re certainly worried about it,” he said, “because how many inpatient general medical units are going to want to take a significantly symptomatic COVID-19 patient who was in the hospital for being acutely suicidal? There are no easy solutions.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There was no hand sanitizer on the hospital’s psychiatric ward for fear patients would drink it; they slept together on futons in communal rooms and the windows were sealed shut to prevent suicide attempts — all conditions that created the perfect environment for the rapid spread of a potentially deadly virus.

This scenario may sound like a something out of a horror film, but as reported last month by the UK newspaper The Independent, it was the reality in the psychiatric ward of South Korea’s Daenam Hospital after COVID-19 struck. Eventually health officials put the ward on lockdown, but it wasn’t long before all but two of the unit’s 103 patients were positive for the virus.

To avoid a similar catastrophe, staff at an Israeli hospital have created what they describe as the “world’s first” dedicated COVID-19 unit for psychiatric inpatients.

Clinicians at Israel’s national hospital, Sheba Medical Center Tel HaShomer in Tel Aviv, believe the 16-bed unit, which officially opened on March 26, will stop psychiatric inpatients with the virus — who may have trouble with social distancing — from spreading it to others on the ward.

“Psychiatric patients are going to get sick from coronavirus just like anybody else,” Mark Weiser, MD, head of the psychiatric division at the institution told Medscape Medical News. “But we’re concerned that, on a psychiatric ward, a patient who is COVID-19 positive can also be psychotic, manic, cognitively impaired, or have poor judgment … making it difficult for that patient to keep social distancing, and very quickly you’ll have an entire ward of patients infected.

“So the basic public health issue is how to prevent a single psychiatric patient who is hospitalized and COVID-19-positive from making everybody else sick,” he added.
 

Unique Challenges, Rapid Response

Adapting an existing psychiatric ward to one exclusively used by inpatients with COVID-19 required significant planning, coordination, and modifications to ensure the well-being of patients and staff.

First, the ward’s air conditioning system was re-engineered to separate it from the hospital’s main system. A dedicated entrance for the exclusive use of infected psychiatric inpatients was also created.

In addition, two-way television cameras in patients’ rooms were installed to facilitate a constant flow of communication and enable therapeutic sessions and family visits. All of these modifications were completed in under a week.

“Under normal circumstances, we have cameras in the public areas of our wards, but in order to respect people’s privacy, we do not have cameras in their rooms.

“In this specific ward, on the other hand, we did put cameras in the rooms, so if a patient needs to be watched more closely, it could be done remotely without exposing staff to the virus. We have a person who’s watching the screens at all times, just to see what’s going on and see what patients are doing,” said Weiser.

Protective personal equipment (PPE) and clothing for staff was tailored to the unique challenges posed by the ward’s patient population.

“Of course, you need to wear clothes that are protective against the virus,” said Weiser. “But sometimes our patients can get agitated or even violent, so you’ve got protect against that as well.”

With this in mind, all personnel working on the ward must put on an extra layer of PPE as well as a tear-proof robe. The institution has also implemented a strict protocol that dictates the order in which PPE is donned and doffed.

“It’s got to be done in a very careful and very specific way,” said Weiser. “We have all of it organized with a poster that explains what should be taken off or put on, and in what order.”

For institutions considering setting up a similar unit, Weiser said close proximity to an active care hospital with the capacity to provide urgent care is key.

“We’re psychiatrists; we’re not great at treating acute respiratory problems. So patients with significant respiratory problems need a place to get appropriate care quickly,” he said.

In setting up the unit, there were still a few obstacles, Weiser noted. For instance, despite the many protective and safety measures undertaken by the institution, some of the hospital staff were concerned about their risk of contracting the virus.

To address these concerns, the hospital’s leadership brought in infectious disease experts to educate hospital personnel about the virus and transmission risk.

“They told our staff that given all the precautions we had taken, there was very little risk anyone else could become infected,” Weiser said.

Despite the many challenges, Weiser said he and his colleagues are thrilled with the dedicated ward and the positive reception it has received.

“My colleagues and the directors of psychiatric hospitals all around the country are very happy with this because now they’re not hospitalizing infected patients. They’re very happy for us to take care of this,” he said.
 

“No Easy Solutions”

Commenting on the initiative for Medscape Medical News, John M. Oldham, MD, chief of staff at Baylor College of Medicine’s Menninger Clinic in Houston, Texas, raised some questions.

“Is it really going to be the treatment unit or a quarantine unit? Because if you don’t have a comparable level of established, effective treatment for these patients, then you’re simply herding them off to a different place where they’re going to suffer both illnesses,” he cautioned.

Nevertheless, Oldham recognized that the issue of how to treat psychiatric patients who test positive for COVID-19 is complex.

“We’re still wrestling with that question here at Menninger. We have created an enclosed section of the inpatient area reserved for this possibility.

“If we have a patient who tests positive, we will immediately put that patient in one of these rooms in the quarantine section. Then we will use protective equipment for our staff to go and provide care for the patient,” he said.

However, he acknowledged that a psychiatric hospital is in no position to treat patients who develop severe illness from COVID-19.

“We’re certainly worried about it,” he said, “because how many inpatient general medical units are going to want to take a significantly symptomatic COVID-19 patient who was in the hospital for being acutely suicidal? There are no easy solutions.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There was no hand sanitizer on the hospital’s psychiatric ward for fear patients would drink it; they slept together on futons in communal rooms and the windows were sealed shut to prevent suicide attempts — all conditions that created the perfect environment for the rapid spread of a potentially deadly virus.

This scenario may sound like a something out of a horror film, but as reported last month by the UK newspaper The Independent, it was the reality in the psychiatric ward of South Korea’s Daenam Hospital after COVID-19 struck. Eventually health officials put the ward on lockdown, but it wasn’t long before all but two of the unit’s 103 patients were positive for the virus.

To avoid a similar catastrophe, staff at an Israeli hospital have created what they describe as the “world’s first” dedicated COVID-19 unit for psychiatric inpatients.

Clinicians at Israel’s national hospital, Sheba Medical Center Tel HaShomer in Tel Aviv, believe the 16-bed unit, which officially opened on March 26, will stop psychiatric inpatients with the virus — who may have trouble with social distancing — from spreading it to others on the ward.

“Psychiatric patients are going to get sick from coronavirus just like anybody else,” Mark Weiser, MD, head of the psychiatric division at the institution told Medscape Medical News. “But we’re concerned that, on a psychiatric ward, a patient who is COVID-19 positive can also be psychotic, manic, cognitively impaired, or have poor judgment … making it difficult for that patient to keep social distancing, and very quickly you’ll have an entire ward of patients infected.

“So the basic public health issue is how to prevent a single psychiatric patient who is hospitalized and COVID-19-positive from making everybody else sick,” he added.
 

Unique Challenges, Rapid Response

Adapting an existing psychiatric ward to one exclusively used by inpatients with COVID-19 required significant planning, coordination, and modifications to ensure the well-being of patients and staff.

First, the ward’s air conditioning system was re-engineered to separate it from the hospital’s main system. A dedicated entrance for the exclusive use of infected psychiatric inpatients was also created.

In addition, two-way television cameras in patients’ rooms were installed to facilitate a constant flow of communication and enable therapeutic sessions and family visits. All of these modifications were completed in under a week.

“Under normal circumstances, we have cameras in the public areas of our wards, but in order to respect people’s privacy, we do not have cameras in their rooms.

“In this specific ward, on the other hand, we did put cameras in the rooms, so if a patient needs to be watched more closely, it could be done remotely without exposing staff to the virus. We have a person who’s watching the screens at all times, just to see what’s going on and see what patients are doing,” said Weiser.

Protective personal equipment (PPE) and clothing for staff was tailored to the unique challenges posed by the ward’s patient population.

“Of course, you need to wear clothes that are protective against the virus,” said Weiser. “But sometimes our patients can get agitated or even violent, so you’ve got protect against that as well.”

With this in mind, all personnel working on the ward must put on an extra layer of PPE as well as a tear-proof robe. The institution has also implemented a strict protocol that dictates the order in which PPE is donned and doffed.

“It’s got to be done in a very careful and very specific way,” said Weiser. “We have all of it organized with a poster that explains what should be taken off or put on, and in what order.”

For institutions considering setting up a similar unit, Weiser said close proximity to an active care hospital with the capacity to provide urgent care is key.

“We’re psychiatrists; we’re not great at treating acute respiratory problems. So patients with significant respiratory problems need a place to get appropriate care quickly,” he said.

In setting up the unit, there were still a few obstacles, Weiser noted. For instance, despite the many protective and safety measures undertaken by the institution, some of the hospital staff were concerned about their risk of contracting the virus.

To address these concerns, the hospital’s leadership brought in infectious disease experts to educate hospital personnel about the virus and transmission risk.

“They told our staff that given all the precautions we had taken, there was very little risk anyone else could become infected,” Weiser said.

Despite the many challenges, Weiser said he and his colleagues are thrilled with the dedicated ward and the positive reception it has received.

“My colleagues and the directors of psychiatric hospitals all around the country are very happy with this because now they’re not hospitalizing infected patients. They’re very happy for us to take care of this,” he said.
 

“No Easy Solutions”

Commenting on the initiative for Medscape Medical News, John M. Oldham, MD, chief of staff at Baylor College of Medicine’s Menninger Clinic in Houston, Texas, raised some questions.

“Is it really going to be the treatment unit or a quarantine unit? Because if you don’t have a comparable level of established, effective treatment for these patients, then you’re simply herding them off to a different place where they’re going to suffer both illnesses,” he cautioned.

Nevertheless, Oldham recognized that the issue of how to treat psychiatric patients who test positive for COVID-19 is complex.

“We’re still wrestling with that question here at Menninger. We have created an enclosed section of the inpatient area reserved for this possibility.

“If we have a patient who tests positive, we will immediately put that patient in one of these rooms in the quarantine section. Then we will use protective equipment for our staff to go and provide care for the patient,” he said.

However, he acknowledged that a psychiatric hospital is in no position to treat patients who develop severe illness from COVID-19.

“We’re certainly worried about it,” he said, “because how many inpatient general medical units are going to want to take a significantly symptomatic COVID-19 patient who was in the hospital for being acutely suicidal? There are no easy solutions.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Because of their place at the interface between critical care and cardiovascular medicine, critical care cardiologists are in a good position to come up with novel approaches to adapting critical care systems to the current crisis. Health care and clinical resources have been severely strained in some places, and increasing evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 can cause injury to most organ systems. More than a quarter of hospitalized patients have cardiac injury, which can be a key reason for clinical deterioration.

An international group of critical care cardiologists led by Jason Katz, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., offered suggestions for scalable models for critical care delivery in the context of COVID-19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Critical care cardiology developed in response to changes in patient populations and their clinical needs. Respiratory insufficiency, heart failure, structural heart disease, and multisystem organ dysfunction became more common than patients with complicated acute MI, leading cardiologists in critical care cardiology to become more proficient in general critical care medicine, and to become leaders in forming collaborative multidisciplinary teams. The authors argued that COVID-19 is precipitating a similar need to adapt to the changing needs of patients.

“This pandemic should serve as a clarion call to our health care systems that we should continue to develop a nimble workforce that can adapt to change quickly during a crisis. We believe critical care cardiologists are well positioned to help serve society in this capacity,” the authors wrote.
 

Surge staging

They proposed four surge stages based in part on an American College of Chest Physicians–endorsed model (Chest 2014 Oct;146:e61S-74S), which regards a 25% capacity surge as minor. At the other end of the spectrum, a 200% surge is defined as a “disaster.” In minor surges (less than 25% increase), the traditional cardiac ICU (CICU) model can continue to be applied. During moderate (25%-100% increases) or major (100%-200%) surges, the critical care cardiologist should collaborate or consult within multiple health care teams. Physicians not trained in critical care can assist with care of intubated and critically ill patients under the supervision of a critical care cardiologist or under the supervision of a partnership between a non–cardiac critical care medicine provider and a cardiologist. The number of patients cared for by each team should increase in step with the size of the surge.

In disaster situations (more than 200% surge), there should be adaptive and dynamic staffing reorganization. The report included an illustration of a range of steps that can be taken, including alterations to staffing, regional care systems, resource management, and triage practices. Scoring systems such as Sequential Organ Failure Assessment may be useful for triaging, but the authors also suggest employment of validated cardiac disease–specific scores, because traditional ICU measures don’t always apply well to CICU populations.

At the hospital level, deferrals should be made for elective cardiac procedures that require CICU or postanesthesia care unit recovery periods. Semielective procedures should be considered after risk-benefit considerations when delays could lead to morbidity or mortality. Even some traditional emergency procedures may need to be reevaluated in the COVID-19 context: For example, some low-risk ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) patients don’t require ICU care but are manageable in cardiac intermediate care beds instead. Historical triage practices should be reexamined to predict which STEMI patients will require ICU care.
 

Resource allocation

The CICU work flow will be affected as some of its beds are opened up to COVID-19 patients. Standard philosophies of concentrating intense resources will have to give way to a utilitarian approach that evaluates operations based on efficiency, equity, and justice. Physician-patient contact should be minimized using technological links when possible, and rounds might be reorganized to first examine patients without COVID-19, in order to minimize between-patient spread.

Military medicine, which is used to ramping up operations during times of crisis, has potential lessons for the current pandemic. In the face of mass casualties, military physicians often turn to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization triage system, which separates patients into four categories: immediate, requiring lifesaving intervention; delayed, requiring intervention within hours to days; minimal, where the patient is injured but ambulatory; and expectant patients who are deceased or too injured to save. Impersonal though this system may be, it may be required in the most severe scenarios when resources are scarce or absent.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Katz J et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.01.

Because of their place at the interface between critical care and cardiovascular medicine, critical care cardiologists are in a good position to come up with novel approaches to adapting critical care systems to the current crisis. Health care and clinical resources have been severely strained in some places, and increasing evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 can cause injury to most organ systems. More than a quarter of hospitalized patients have cardiac injury, which can be a key reason for clinical deterioration.

An international group of critical care cardiologists led by Jason Katz, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., offered suggestions for scalable models for critical care delivery in the context of COVID-19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Critical care cardiology developed in response to changes in patient populations and their clinical needs. Respiratory insufficiency, heart failure, structural heart disease, and multisystem organ dysfunction became more common than patients with complicated acute MI, leading cardiologists in critical care cardiology to become more proficient in general critical care medicine, and to become leaders in forming collaborative multidisciplinary teams. The authors argued that COVID-19 is precipitating a similar need to adapt to the changing needs of patients.

“This pandemic should serve as a clarion call to our health care systems that we should continue to develop a nimble workforce that can adapt to change quickly during a crisis. We believe critical care cardiologists are well positioned to help serve society in this capacity,” the authors wrote.
 

Surge staging

They proposed four surge stages based in part on an American College of Chest Physicians–endorsed model (Chest 2014 Oct;146:e61S-74S), which regards a 25% capacity surge as minor. At the other end of the spectrum, a 200% surge is defined as a “disaster.” In minor surges (less than 25% increase), the traditional cardiac ICU (CICU) model can continue to be applied. During moderate (25%-100% increases) or major (100%-200%) surges, the critical care cardiologist should collaborate or consult within multiple health care teams. Physicians not trained in critical care can assist with care of intubated and critically ill patients under the supervision of a critical care cardiologist or under the supervision of a partnership between a non–cardiac critical care medicine provider and a cardiologist. The number of patients cared for by each team should increase in step with the size of the surge.

In disaster situations (more than 200% surge), there should be adaptive and dynamic staffing reorganization. The report included an illustration of a range of steps that can be taken, including alterations to staffing, regional care systems, resource management, and triage practices. Scoring systems such as Sequential Organ Failure Assessment may be useful for triaging, but the authors also suggest employment of validated cardiac disease–specific scores, because traditional ICU measures don’t always apply well to CICU populations.

At the hospital level, deferrals should be made for elective cardiac procedures that require CICU or postanesthesia care unit recovery periods. Semielective procedures should be considered after risk-benefit considerations when delays could lead to morbidity or mortality. Even some traditional emergency procedures may need to be reevaluated in the COVID-19 context: For example, some low-risk ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) patients don’t require ICU care but are manageable in cardiac intermediate care beds instead. Historical triage practices should be reexamined to predict which STEMI patients will require ICU care.
 

Resource allocation

The CICU work flow will be affected as some of its beds are opened up to COVID-19 patients. Standard philosophies of concentrating intense resources will have to give way to a utilitarian approach that evaluates operations based on efficiency, equity, and justice. Physician-patient contact should be minimized using technological links when possible, and rounds might be reorganized to first examine patients without COVID-19, in order to minimize between-patient spread.

Military medicine, which is used to ramping up operations during times of crisis, has potential lessons for the current pandemic. In the face of mass casualties, military physicians often turn to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization triage system, which separates patients into four categories: immediate, requiring lifesaving intervention; delayed, requiring intervention within hours to days; minimal, where the patient is injured but ambulatory; and expectant patients who are deceased or too injured to save. Impersonal though this system may be, it may be required in the most severe scenarios when resources are scarce or absent.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Katz J et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.01.

Because of their place at the interface between critical care and cardiovascular medicine, critical care cardiologists are in a good position to come up with novel approaches to adapting critical care systems to the current crisis. Health care and clinical resources have been severely strained in some places, and increasing evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 can cause injury to most organ systems. More than a quarter of hospitalized patients have cardiac injury, which can be a key reason for clinical deterioration.

An international group of critical care cardiologists led by Jason Katz, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., offered suggestions for scalable models for critical care delivery in the context of COVID-19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Critical care cardiology developed in response to changes in patient populations and their clinical needs. Respiratory insufficiency, heart failure, structural heart disease, and multisystem organ dysfunction became more common than patients with complicated acute MI, leading cardiologists in critical care cardiology to become more proficient in general critical care medicine, and to become leaders in forming collaborative multidisciplinary teams. The authors argued that COVID-19 is precipitating a similar need to adapt to the changing needs of patients.

“This pandemic should serve as a clarion call to our health care systems that we should continue to develop a nimble workforce that can adapt to change quickly during a crisis. We believe critical care cardiologists are well positioned to help serve society in this capacity,” the authors wrote.
 

Surge staging

They proposed four surge stages based in part on an American College of Chest Physicians–endorsed model (Chest 2014 Oct;146:e61S-74S), which regards a 25% capacity surge as minor. At the other end of the spectrum, a 200% surge is defined as a “disaster.” In minor surges (less than 25% increase), the traditional cardiac ICU (CICU) model can continue to be applied. During moderate (25%-100% increases) or major (100%-200%) surges, the critical care cardiologist should collaborate or consult within multiple health care teams. Physicians not trained in critical care can assist with care of intubated and critically ill patients under the supervision of a critical care cardiologist or under the supervision of a partnership between a non–cardiac critical care medicine provider and a cardiologist. The number of patients cared for by each team should increase in step with the size of the surge.

In disaster situations (more than 200% surge), there should be adaptive and dynamic staffing reorganization. The report included an illustration of a range of steps that can be taken, including alterations to staffing, regional care systems, resource management, and triage practices. Scoring systems such as Sequential Organ Failure Assessment may be useful for triaging, but the authors also suggest employment of validated cardiac disease–specific scores, because traditional ICU measures don’t always apply well to CICU populations.

At the hospital level, deferrals should be made for elective cardiac procedures that require CICU or postanesthesia care unit recovery periods. Semielective procedures should be considered after risk-benefit considerations when delays could lead to morbidity or mortality. Even some traditional emergency procedures may need to be reevaluated in the COVID-19 context: For example, some low-risk ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) patients don’t require ICU care but are manageable in cardiac intermediate care beds instead. Historical triage practices should be reexamined to predict which STEMI patients will require ICU care.
 

Resource allocation

The CICU work flow will be affected as some of its beds are opened up to COVID-19 patients. Standard philosophies of concentrating intense resources will have to give way to a utilitarian approach that evaluates operations based on efficiency, equity, and justice. Physician-patient contact should be minimized using technological links when possible, and rounds might be reorganized to first examine patients without COVID-19, in order to minimize between-patient spread.

Military medicine, which is used to ramping up operations during times of crisis, has potential lessons for the current pandemic. In the face of mass casualties, military physicians often turn to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization triage system, which separates patients into four categories: immediate, requiring lifesaving intervention; delayed, requiring intervention within hours to days; minimal, where the patient is injured but ambulatory; and expectant patients who are deceased or too injured to save. Impersonal though this system may be, it may be required in the most severe scenarios when resources are scarce or absent.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Katz J et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.01.

The explanation for the impressive clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in women with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial – but not in the men – remains elusive, Jonathan W. Cunningham, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

American College of Cardiology

“We’ve all been trying to unravel the explanation for the differential effects between men and women in the primary trial. I don’t know that this NT-proBNP substudy gives a clear answer because we did see similar reduction in NT-proBNP in the men and women,” said Dr. Cunningham of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“Unfortunately, I think we’re still looking for the underlying physiological explanation for that very interesting interaction,” he added.

The PARAGON-HF trial included 4,796 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who were randomized double-blind to sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) or valsartan on top of background guideline-directed medical therapy and followed for a median of 34 months (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The sacubitril/valsartan group’s 13% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalizations fell tantalizingly short of statistical significance (P = 0.058).

In women, however, who comprised more than half of the study population, the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was larger: a 27% relative risk reduction compared to valsartan alone. That’s a statistically significant difference in a prespecified subgroup analysis, but according to the rules of clinical trials and statistics it must be considered hypothesis-generating and nondefinitive, since the overall trial was negative. Men randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had a modest 3% increased risk of the primary endpoint compared to men on valsartan.

Because of the enormous unmet need for effective therapy for HFpEF, and the fact that HFpEF is more common in women than men, the search is on for an explanation that would account for the striking gender difference in outcome in PARAGON-HF. At ACC 2020, Dr. Cunningham presented a secondary analysis of the trial focusing on the relationships between baseline and on-treatment N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and clinical outcomes.

Among the key findings was that the higher the baseline NT-proBNP, the greater the likelihood of the primary endpoint. Also, sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP to a similar extent in men and women: For example, by 20% compared to valsartan in men and by 18% in women when measured 16 weeks after randomization. And reduction in NT-proBNP was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations; indeed, 60% of participants in PARAGON-HF experienced a decrease in NT-proBNP, and they had a 23% lower event rate compared to patients whose NT-proBNP increased during the course of the study.

Another intriguing finding in the parent PARAGON-HF trial was that HFpEF patients with an LVEF of 45%-57% had a 22% lower rate of the primary endpoint than those with an LVEF of 58% or more. But as with the gender difference in clinical outcomes in response to sacubitril/valsartan, the difference in outcomes based on ejection fraction was not mediated by the drug’s impact on NT-proBNP, since sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP to a similar degree in HFpEF patients with an LVEF above or below 57%.

The difference in outcomes by ejection fraction wasn’t entirely surprising, because those low-normal–range ejection fractions where sacubitril/valsartan had a favorable impact approach those characteristic of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and guidelines give sacubitril/valsartan a class I recommendation in patients with HFrEF on the strength of the medication’s demonstrated reduction in morbidity and mortality in the PARADIGM-HF trial.

Discussant Lee R. Goldberg, MD, predicted this analysis will have an impact on the design of future clinical trials in HFpEF, which up until now have required certain minimum NT-proBNP levels for participation.

“Maybe this is why so many of our trials in HFpEF have been unsuccessful. It’s a very heterogeneous population and perhaps NT-proBNP cutoffs are leading to a lot of mischief or heterogeneity that causes us some difficulty,” said Dr. Goldberg, professor of medicine and chief of the section of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplantation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Cunningham reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. The PARAGON-HF trial was funded by Novartis.

Simultaneously with Dr. Cunningham’s presentation at ACC 2020, the study results were published online (JACC Heart Fail. 2020 Mar 26; doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2020.03.002.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cunningham JW. ACC 2020, Abstract 412-08.

The explanation for the impressive clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in women with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial – but not in the men – remains elusive, Jonathan W. Cunningham, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

American College of Cardiology

“We’ve all been trying to unravel the explanation for the differential effects between men and women in the primary trial. I don’t know that this NT-proBNP substudy gives a clear answer because we did see similar reduction in NT-proBNP in the men and women,” said Dr. Cunningham of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“Unfortunately, I think we’re still looking for the underlying physiological explanation for that very interesting interaction,” he added.

The PARAGON-HF trial included 4,796 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who were randomized double-blind to sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) or valsartan on top of background guideline-directed medical therapy and followed for a median of 34 months (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The sacubitril/valsartan group’s 13% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalizations fell tantalizingly short of statistical significance (P = 0.058).

In women, however, who comprised more than half of the study population, the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was larger: a 27% relative risk reduction compared to valsartan alone. That’s a statistically significant difference in a prespecified subgroup analysis, but according to the rules of clinical trials and statistics it must be considered hypothesis-generating and nondefinitive, since the overall trial was negative. Men randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had a modest 3% increased risk of the primary endpoint compared to men on valsartan.

Because of the enormous unmet need for effective therapy for HFpEF, and the fact that HFpEF is more common in women than men, the search is on for an explanation that would account for the striking gender difference in outcome in PARAGON-HF. At ACC 2020, Dr. Cunningham presented a secondary analysis of the trial focusing on the relationships between baseline and on-treatment N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and clinical outcomes.

Among the key findings was that the higher the baseline NT-proBNP, the greater the likelihood of the primary endpoint. Also, sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP to a similar extent in men and women: For example, by 20% compared to valsartan in men and by 18% in women when measured 16 weeks after randomization. And reduction in NT-proBNP was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations; indeed, 60% of participants in PARAGON-HF experienced a decrease in NT-proBNP, and they had a 23% lower event rate compared to patients whose NT-proBNP increased during the course of the study.

Another intriguing finding in the parent PARAGON-HF trial was that HFpEF patients with an LVEF of 45%-57% had a 22% lower rate of the primary endpoint than those with an LVEF of 58% or more. But as with the gender difference in clinical outcomes in response to sacubitril/valsartan, the difference in outcomes based on ejection fraction was not mediated by the drug’s impact on NT-proBNP, since sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP to a similar degree in HFpEF patients with an LVEF above or below 57%.

The difference in outcomes by ejection fraction wasn’t entirely surprising, because those low-normal–range ejection fractions where sacubitril/valsartan had a favorable impact approach those characteristic of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and guidelines give sacubitril/valsartan a class I recommendation in patients with HFrEF on the strength of the medication’s demonstrated reduction in morbidity and mortality in the PARADIGM-HF trial.

Discussant Lee R. Goldberg, MD, predicted this analysis will have an impact on the design of future clinical trials in HFpEF, which up until now have required certain minimum NT-proBNP levels for participation.

“Maybe this is why so many of our trials in HFpEF have been unsuccessful. It’s a very heterogeneous population and perhaps NT-proBNP cutoffs are leading to a lot of mischief or heterogeneity that causes us some difficulty,” said Dr. Goldberg, professor of medicine and chief of the section of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplantation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Cunningham reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. The PARAGON-HF trial was funded by Novartis.

Simultaneously with Dr. Cunningham’s presentation at ACC 2020, the study results were published online (JACC Heart Fail. 2020 Mar 26; doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2020.03.002.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cunningham JW. ACC 2020, Abstract 412-08.

The explanation for the impressive clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in women with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial – but not in the men – remains elusive, Jonathan W. Cunningham, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

American College of Cardiology

“We’ve all been trying to unravel the explanation for the differential effects between men and women in the primary trial. I don’t know that this NT-proBNP substudy gives a clear answer because we did see similar reduction in NT-proBNP in the men and women,” said Dr. Cunningham of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“Unfortunately, I think we’re still looking for the underlying physiological explanation for that very interesting interaction,” he added.

The PARAGON-HF trial included 4,796 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who were randomized double-blind to sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) or valsartan on top of background guideline-directed medical therapy and followed for a median of 34 months (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The sacubitril/valsartan group’s 13% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalizations fell tantalizingly short of statistical significance (P = 0.058).

In women, however, who comprised more than half of the study population, the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was larger: a 27% relative risk reduction compared to valsartan alone. That’s a statistically significant difference in a prespecified subgroup analysis, but according to the rules of clinical trials and statistics it must be considered hypothesis-generating and nondefinitive, since the overall trial was negative. Men randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had a modest 3% increased risk of the primary endpoint compared to men on valsartan.

Because of the enormous unmet need for effective therapy for HFpEF, and the fact that HFpEF is more common in women than men, the search is on for an explanation that would account for the striking gender difference in outcome in PARAGON-HF. At ACC 2020, Dr. Cunningham presented a secondary analysis of the trial focusing on the relationships between baseline and on-treatment N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and clinical outcomes.

Among the key findings was that the higher the baseline NT-proBNP, the greater the likelihood of the primary endpoint. Also, sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP to a similar extent in men and women: For example, by 20% compared to valsartan in men and by 18% in women when measured 16 weeks after randomization. And reduction in NT-proBNP was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations; indeed, 60% of participants in PARAGON-HF experienced a decrease in NT-proBNP, and they had a 23% lower event rate compared to patients whose NT-proBNP increased during the course of the study.

Another intriguing finding in the parent PARAGON-HF trial was that HFpEF patients with an LVEF of 45%-57% had a 22% lower rate of the primary endpoint than those with an LVEF of 58% or more. But as with the gender difference in clinical outcomes in response to sacubitril/valsartan, the difference in outcomes based on ejection fraction was not mediated by the drug’s impact on NT-proBNP, since sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP to a similar degree in HFpEF patients with an LVEF above or below 57%.

The difference in outcomes by ejection fraction wasn’t entirely surprising, because those low-normal–range ejection fractions where sacubitril/valsartan had a favorable impact approach those characteristic of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and guidelines give sacubitril/valsartan a class I recommendation in patients with HFrEF on the strength of the medication’s demonstrated reduction in morbidity and mortality in the PARADIGM-HF trial.

Discussant Lee R. Goldberg, MD, predicted this analysis will have an impact on the design of future clinical trials in HFpEF, which up until now have required certain minimum NT-proBNP levels for participation.

“Maybe this is why so many of our trials in HFpEF have been unsuccessful. It’s a very heterogeneous population and perhaps NT-proBNP cutoffs are leading to a lot of mischief or heterogeneity that causes us some difficulty,” said Dr. Goldberg, professor of medicine and chief of the section of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplantation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Cunningham reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. The PARAGON-HF trial was funded by Novartis.

Simultaneously with Dr. Cunningham’s presentation at ACC 2020, the study results were published online (JACC Heart Fail. 2020 Mar 26; doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2020.03.002.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cunningham JW. ACC 2020, Abstract 412-08.

Patients infected by the COVID-19 virus may benefit from treatments that dampen the renin-angiotensin system, according to a review of several animal studies. These preclinical findings generally support the positions taken in recent week by several cardiology societies that recommended patients taking drugs that moderate the renin-angiotensin system stay on these treatments.

“In patients with cardiovascular disease and SARS-CoV2, the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs [angiotensin receptor blockers], or MRAs [mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists] may be favorable as a method to endogenously upregulate ACE2 as a compensatory mechanism that provides anti-inflammatory, antifibrotic, and antithrombotic support as well as reduction in progression of vascular/cardiac remodeling and heart failure,” wrote Jeffrey Bander, MD, and his associates in a report published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.028).

“Based on our review, we hypothesize cardiovascular patients with COVID-19 should remain on RAS [renin-angiotensin system] inhibitors given the protective effects of the ACE2 pathway until RAS blockade is proven to increase the risk to COVID-19,” said the researchers, who are affiliated with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The ACE2 protein, found both in human blood as well as in cell membranes, especially cells of the lungs, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tissues, functions as both a key enzyme in RAS regulation as well as the primary cell receptor for entry of SARS-CoV2.

Their conclusion jibed with both a joint statement in March from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America; and with the conclusions of a review organized by the European Society of Hypertension’s COVID-19 Task Force (Cardiovasc Res. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa097).

In their review, the Mount Sinai authors described results from several animal studies suggesting that ACE2 and its associated signaling proteins could potentially be a “valuable therapeutic target.” They also highlighted several clinical intervention studies recently launched to target ACE2, related proteins, and regulation of this arm of the RAS.

Currently, “no data support any conclusive effects of the use of RAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19,” they concluded. They acknowledged that “the question remains whether the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and MRAs should be avoided in the setting of SARS-CoV infection,” but emphasized that “adequate data on the effects of RAS inhibition in COVID-19 patients is not available,” with more data becoming available soon from ongoing clinical studies.

None of the authors had any disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients infected by the COVID-19 virus may benefit from treatments that dampen the renin-angiotensin system, according to a review of several animal studies. These preclinical findings generally support the positions taken in recent week by several cardiology societies that recommended patients taking drugs that moderate the renin-angiotensin system stay on these treatments.

“In patients with cardiovascular disease and SARS-CoV2, the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs [angiotensin receptor blockers], or MRAs [mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists] may be favorable as a method to endogenously upregulate ACE2 as a compensatory mechanism that provides anti-inflammatory, antifibrotic, and antithrombotic support as well as reduction in progression of vascular/cardiac remodeling and heart failure,” wrote Jeffrey Bander, MD, and his associates in a report published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.028).

“Based on our review, we hypothesize cardiovascular patients with COVID-19 should remain on RAS [renin-angiotensin system] inhibitors given the protective effects of the ACE2 pathway until RAS blockade is proven to increase the risk to COVID-19,” said the researchers, who are affiliated with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The ACE2 protein, found both in human blood as well as in cell membranes, especially cells of the lungs, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tissues, functions as both a key enzyme in RAS regulation as well as the primary cell receptor for entry of SARS-CoV2.

Their conclusion jibed with both a joint statement in March from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America; and with the conclusions of a review organized by the European Society of Hypertension’s COVID-19 Task Force (Cardiovasc Res. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa097).

In their review, the Mount Sinai authors described results from several animal studies suggesting that ACE2 and its associated signaling proteins could potentially be a “valuable therapeutic target.” They also highlighted several clinical intervention studies recently launched to target ACE2, related proteins, and regulation of this arm of the RAS.

Currently, “no data support any conclusive effects of the use of RAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19,” they concluded. They acknowledged that “the question remains whether the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and MRAs should be avoided in the setting of SARS-CoV infection,” but emphasized that “adequate data on the effects of RAS inhibition in COVID-19 patients is not available,” with more data becoming available soon from ongoing clinical studies.

None of the authors had any disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients infected by the COVID-19 virus may benefit from treatments that dampen the renin-angiotensin system, according to a review of several animal studies. These preclinical findings generally support the positions taken in recent week by several cardiology societies that recommended patients taking drugs that moderate the renin-angiotensin system stay on these treatments.

“In patients with cardiovascular disease and SARS-CoV2, the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs [angiotensin receptor blockers], or MRAs [mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists] may be favorable as a method to endogenously upregulate ACE2 as a compensatory mechanism that provides anti-inflammatory, antifibrotic, and antithrombotic support as well as reduction in progression of vascular/cardiac remodeling and heart failure,” wrote Jeffrey Bander, MD, and his associates in a report published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.028).

“Based on our review, we hypothesize cardiovascular patients with COVID-19 should remain on RAS [renin-angiotensin system] inhibitors given the protective effects of the ACE2 pathway until RAS blockade is proven to increase the risk to COVID-19,” said the researchers, who are affiliated with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The ACE2 protein, found both in human blood as well as in cell membranes, especially cells of the lungs, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tissues, functions as both a key enzyme in RAS regulation as well as the primary cell receptor for entry of SARS-CoV2.

Their conclusion jibed with both a joint statement in March from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America; and with the conclusions of a review organized by the European Society of Hypertension’s COVID-19 Task Force (Cardiovasc Res. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa097).

In their review, the Mount Sinai authors described results from several animal studies suggesting that ACE2 and its associated signaling proteins could potentially be a “valuable therapeutic target.” They also highlighted several clinical intervention studies recently launched to target ACE2, related proteins, and regulation of this arm of the RAS.

Currently, “no data support any conclusive effects of the use of RAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19,” they concluded. They acknowledged that “the question remains whether the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and MRAs should be avoided in the setting of SARS-CoV infection,” but emphasized that “adequate data on the effects of RAS inhibition in COVID-19 patients is not available,” with more data becoming available soon from ongoing clinical studies.

None of the authors had any disclosures.

[email protected]

Social distancing is slowing the spread of COVID-19, but it will undoubtedly have negative consequences for mental health and well-being in both the short- and long-term, public health experts say.

In an article published online April 10 in JAMA Internal Medicine on the mental health consequences of COVID-19, the authors warn of a “pandemic” of behavioral problems and mental illness.

“COVID-19 is a traumatic event that we are all experiencing. We can well expect there to be a rise in mental illness nationwide,” first author Sandro Galea, MD, dean of the School of Public Health at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Education about this, screening for those with symptoms, and availability of treatment are all important to mitigate the mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Galea added.
 

Anxiety, depression, child abuse

The COVID-19 pandemic will likely result in “substantial” increases in anxiety and depression, substance use, loneliness, and domestic violence. In addition, with school closures, the possibility of an epidemic of child abuse is “very real,” the authors noted.

As reported online, a recent national survey by the American Psychiatric Association showed COVID-19 is seriously affecting Americans’ mental health, with half of U.S. adults reporting high levels of anxiety.

The authors suggest that three steps, taken now, can help prepare for the coming mental health problems and associated problems that will result from the pandemic.

The first step is to plan for the inevitability of loneliness and its sequelae as populations physically and socially isolate and to find ways to intervene.

To prepare, the authors suggest the use of digital technologies to mitigate the impact of social distancing, even while physical distancing. They also encourage places of worship, gyms, yoga studios, and other places people normally gather to offer regularly scheduled online activities.

Employers also can help by offering virtual technologies that enable employees to work from home, and schools should develop and implement online learning for children.

“Even with all of these measures, there will still be segments of the population that are lonely and isolated. This suggests the need for remote approaches for outreach and screening for loneliness and associated mental health conditions so that social support can be provided,” the authors noted.

Need for creative thinking

The authors noted the second “critical” step is to have mechanisms in place for surveillance, reporting, and intervention, particularly when it comes to domestic violence and child abuse.

“Individuals at risk for abuse may have limited opportunities to report or seek help when shelter-in-place requirements demand prolonged cohabitation at home and limit travel outside of the home,” they wrote.

“Systems will need to balance the need for social distancing with the availability of safe places to be for people who are at risk, and social services systems will need to be creative in their approaches to following up on reports of problems,” they noted.

Finally, the authors note that now is the time to bolster the U.S. mental health system in preparation for the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Scaling up treatment in the midst of crisis will take creative thinking. Communities and organizations could consider training nontraditional groups to provide psychological first aid, helping teach the lay public to check in with one another and provide support,” they wrote.

“This difficult moment in time nonetheless offers the opportunity to advance our understanding of how to provide prevention-focused, population-level, and indeed national-level psychological first aid and mental health care, and to emerge from this pandemic with new ways of doing so.”
 

Invaluable advice

Reached for comment, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, psychiatrist and adjunct professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, described the article as “invaluable” noting that it “clearly and concisely describes the mental health consequences we can expect in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic – and what can (and needs) to be done to mitigate them.”

Dr. Sederer added that Dr. Galea has “studied and been part of the mental health responses to previous disasters, and is a leader in public health, including public mental health. His voice truly is worth listening to (and acting upon).”

Dr. Sederer offers additional suggestions on addressing mental health after disasters in a recent perspective article

Dr. Galea and Dr. Sederer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social distancing is slowing the spread of COVID-19, but it will undoubtedly have negative consequences for mental health and well-being in both the short- and long-term, public health experts say.

In an article published online April 10 in JAMA Internal Medicine on the mental health consequences of COVID-19, the authors warn of a “pandemic” of behavioral problems and mental illness.

“COVID-19 is a traumatic event that we are all experiencing. We can well expect there to be a rise in mental illness nationwide,” first author Sandro Galea, MD, dean of the School of Public Health at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Education about this, screening for those with symptoms, and availability of treatment are all important to mitigate the mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Galea added.
 

Anxiety, depression, child abuse

The COVID-19 pandemic will likely result in “substantial” increases in anxiety and depression, substance use, loneliness, and domestic violence. In addition, with school closures, the possibility of an epidemic of child abuse is “very real,” the authors noted.

As reported online, a recent national survey by the American Psychiatric Association showed COVID-19 is seriously affecting Americans’ mental health, with half of U.S. adults reporting high levels of anxiety.

The authors suggest that three steps, taken now, can help prepare for the coming mental health problems and associated problems that will result from the pandemic.

The first step is to plan for the inevitability of loneliness and its sequelae as populations physically and socially isolate and to find ways to intervene.

To prepare, the authors suggest the use of digital technologies to mitigate the impact of social distancing, even while physical distancing. They also encourage places of worship, gyms, yoga studios, and other places people normally gather to offer regularly scheduled online activities.

Employers also can help by offering virtual technologies that enable employees to work from home, and schools should develop and implement online learning for children.

“Even with all of these measures, there will still be segments of the population that are lonely and isolated. This suggests the need for remote approaches for outreach and screening for loneliness and associated mental health conditions so that social support can be provided,” the authors noted.

Need for creative thinking

The authors noted the second “critical” step is to have mechanisms in place for surveillance, reporting, and intervention, particularly when it comes to domestic violence and child abuse.

“Individuals at risk for abuse may have limited opportunities to report or seek help when shelter-in-place requirements demand prolonged cohabitation at home and limit travel outside of the home,” they wrote.

“Systems will need to balance the need for social distancing with the availability of safe places to be for people who are at risk, and social services systems will need to be creative in their approaches to following up on reports of problems,” they noted.

Finally, the authors note that now is the time to bolster the U.S. mental health system in preparation for the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Scaling up treatment in the midst of crisis will take creative thinking. Communities and organizations could consider training nontraditional groups to provide psychological first aid, helping teach the lay public to check in with one another and provide support,” they wrote.

“This difficult moment in time nonetheless offers the opportunity to advance our understanding of how to provide prevention-focused, population-level, and indeed national-level psychological first aid and mental health care, and to emerge from this pandemic with new ways of doing so.”
 

Invaluable advice

Reached for comment, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, psychiatrist and adjunct professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, described the article as “invaluable” noting that it “clearly and concisely describes the mental health consequences we can expect in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic – and what can (and needs) to be done to mitigate them.”

Dr. Sederer added that Dr. Galea has “studied and been part of the mental health responses to previous disasters, and is a leader in public health, including public mental health. His voice truly is worth listening to (and acting upon).”

Dr. Sederer offers additional suggestions on addressing mental health after disasters in a recent perspective article

Dr. Galea and Dr. Sederer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social distancing is slowing the spread of COVID-19, but it will undoubtedly have negative consequences for mental health and well-being in both the short- and long-term, public health experts say.

In an article published online April 10 in JAMA Internal Medicine on the mental health consequences of COVID-19, the authors warn of a “pandemic” of behavioral problems and mental illness.

“COVID-19 is a traumatic event that we are all experiencing. We can well expect there to be a rise in mental illness nationwide,” first author Sandro Galea, MD, dean of the School of Public Health at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Education about this, screening for those with symptoms, and availability of treatment are all important to mitigate the mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Galea added.
 

Anxiety, depression, child abuse

The COVID-19 pandemic will likely result in “substantial” increases in anxiety and depression, substance use, loneliness, and domestic violence. In addition, with school closures, the possibility of an epidemic of child abuse is “very real,” the authors noted.

As reported online, a recent national survey by the American Psychiatric Association showed COVID-19 is seriously affecting Americans’ mental health, with half of U.S. adults reporting high levels of anxiety.

The authors suggest that three steps, taken now, can help prepare for the coming mental health problems and associated problems that will result from the pandemic.

The first step is to plan for the inevitability of loneliness and its sequelae as populations physically and socially isolate and to find ways to intervene.

To prepare, the authors suggest the use of digital technologies to mitigate the impact of social distancing, even while physical distancing. They also encourage places of worship, gyms, yoga studios, and other places people normally gather to offer regularly scheduled online activities.

Employers also can help by offering virtual technologies that enable employees to work from home, and schools should develop and implement online learning for children.

“Even with all of these measures, there will still be segments of the population that are lonely and isolated. This suggests the need for remote approaches for outreach and screening for loneliness and associated mental health conditions so that social support can be provided,” the authors noted.

Need for creative thinking

The authors noted the second “critical” step is to have mechanisms in place for surveillance, reporting, and intervention, particularly when it comes to domestic violence and child abuse.

“Individuals at risk for abuse may have limited opportunities to report or seek help when shelter-in-place requirements demand prolonged cohabitation at home and limit travel outside of the home,” they wrote.

“Systems will need to balance the need for social distancing with the availability of safe places to be for people who are at risk, and social services systems will need to be creative in their approaches to following up on reports of problems,” they noted.

Finally, the authors note that now is the time to bolster the U.S. mental health system in preparation for the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Scaling up treatment in the midst of crisis will take creative thinking. Communities and organizations could consider training nontraditional groups to provide psychological first aid, helping teach the lay public to check in with one another and provide support,” they wrote.

“This difficult moment in time nonetheless offers the opportunity to advance our understanding of how to provide prevention-focused, population-level, and indeed national-level psychological first aid and mental health care, and to emerge from this pandemic with new ways of doing so.”
 

Invaluable advice

Reached for comment, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, psychiatrist and adjunct professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, described the article as “invaluable” noting that it “clearly and concisely describes the mental health consequences we can expect in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic – and what can (and needs) to be done to mitigate them.”

Dr. Sederer added that Dr. Galea has “studied and been part of the mental health responses to previous disasters, and is a leader in public health, including public mental health. His voice truly is worth listening to (and acting upon).”

Dr. Sederer offers additional suggestions on addressing mental health after disasters in a recent perspective article

Dr. Galea and Dr. Sederer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jails provide ideal conditions for the spread of COVID-19, as made clear by the distressing stories coming out of New York City. Beyond the very substantial risks posed by the virus itself, practitioners tasked with attending to the large proportion of inmates with mental illness now face additional challenges.

Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Elizabeth Ford, MD, former chief of psychiatry for NYC Health + Hospitals/Correctional Health Services and current chief medical officer for the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), a community organization focused on the needs of people touched by the criminal justice system, to find out how COVID-19 may be reshaping the mental health care of incarcerated patients. As noted by Ford, who authored the 2017 memoir Sometimes Amazing Things Happen: Heartbreak and Hope on the Bellevue Hospital Psychiatric Prison Ward, the unique vulnerabilities of this population were evident well before the coronavirus pandemic’s arrival on our shores.
 

What are the unique health and mental health challenges that can arise in correctional facilities during crises like this, in particular, infectious crises? Or are we still learning this as COVID-19 spreads?

I think it’s important to say that they are still learning it, and I don’t want to speak for them. I left Correctional Health Services on Feb. 14, and we weren’t aware of [all the risks posed by COVID-19] at that point.

I worked in the jail proper for five and a half years. Prior to that I spent a decade at Bellevue Hospital, where I took care of the same patients, who were still incarcerated but also hospitalized. In those years, the closest I ever came to managing something like this was Superstorm Sandy, which obviously had much different health implications.

All of the things that the community is struggling with in terms of the virus also apply in jails and prisons: identifying people who are sick, keeping healthy people from getting sick, preventing sick people from getting worse, separating populations, treatment options, testing options, making sure people follow the appropriate hygiene recommendations. It’s just amplified immensely because these are closed systems that tend to be poorly sanitized, crowded, and frequently forgotten or minimized in public health and political conversations.

A really important distinction is that individuals who are incarcerated do not have control over their behavior in the way that they would in the outside world. They may want to wash their hands frequently and to stay six feet away from everybody, but they can’t because the environment doesn’t allow for that. I know that everyone – correctional officers, health staff, incarcerated individuals, the city – is trying to figure out how to do those things in the jail. The primary challenge is that you don’t have the ability to do the things that you know are right to prevent the spread of the infection.
 

I know you can’t speak to what’s going on at specific jails at the moment, but what sort of psychiatric measures would a jail system put forth in a time like this?

It’s a good question, because like everybody, they’re having to balance the safety of the staff and the patients. Mental health interventions are mostly in person and very time intensive, and social distancing guidelines don’t allow for that now.

I expect that the jails are trying to stratify patients based on severity, both physical and psychological, although increasingly it’s likely harder to separate those who are sick from those who aren’t. In areas where patients are sick, I think the mental health staff are likely doing as much intervention as they can safely, including remote work like telehealth. Telehealth actually got its start in prisons, because they couldn’t get enough providers to come in and do the work in person.
 

I’ve read a lot of the criticism around this, specifically at Rikers Island, where inmates are still closely seated at dining tables, with no possibility of social distancing. [Editor’s note: At the time of this writing, Rikers Island experienced its first inmate death due to COVID-19.] But I see the other side of it. What are jails supposed to do when limited to such a confined space?

That’s correct. I think it is hard for someone who has not lived or worked intensely in these settings to understand how difficult it can be to implement even the most basic hygiene precautions. There are all sorts of efforts happening to create more space, to reduce admissions coming into the jail, to try to expedite discharges out, to offer a lot more sanitation options. I think they may have opened up a jail that was empty to allow for more space.
 

In a recent Medscape commentary, Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, from Columbia University detailed how a crisis like this may affect those in different tiers of mental illness. Interestingly, there are data showing that those with serious mental illness – schizophrenia, severe mania – often aren’t panicked by disasters. I assume that a sizable percentage of the jail population has severe mental illness, so I was curious about what your experience is, about how they may handle it psychologically.

The rate of serious mental illness in jail is roughly 16% or so, which is three or four times higher than the general population.

Although I don’t know if these kinds of crises differentially affect people with serious mental illness, I do believe very strongly that situations like this, for those who are and who are not incarcerated, can exacerbate or cause symptoms like anxiety, depression, and elevated levels of fear – fear about the unknown, fear of illness or death, fear of isolation.

For people who are incarcerated and who understandably may struggle with trusting the system that is supposed to be keeping them safe, I am concerned that this kind of situation will make that lack of trust worse. I worry that when they get out of jail they will be less inclined to seek help. I imagine that the staff in the jails are doing as much as they can to support the patients, but the staff are also likely experiencing some version of the abandonment and frustration that the patients may feel.

I’ve also seen – not in a crisis of this magnitude but in other crisis situations – that a community really develops among everybody in incarcerated settings. A shared crisis forces everybody to work together in ways that they may not have before. That includes more tolerance for behaviors, more understanding of differences, including mental illness and developmental delay. More compassion.
 

Do you mean between prisoners and staff? Among everybody?

Everybody. In all of the different relationships you can imagine.
 

That speaks to the vulnerability and good nature in all of us. It’s encouraging.

It is, although it’s devastating to me that it happens because they collectively feel so neglected and forgotten. Shared trauma can bind people together very closely.
 

What psychiatric conditions did you typically see in New York City jails?

For the many people with serious mental illness, it’s generally schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses and bipolar disorder – really severe illnesses that do not do well in confinement settings. There’s a lot of anxiety and depression, some that rises to the level of serious illness. There is near universal substance use among the population.

There is also almost universal trauma exposure, whether early-childhood experiences or the ongoing trauma of incarceration. Not everyone has PTSD, but almost everyone behaves in a traumatized way. As you know, in the United States, incarceration is very racially and socioeconomically biased; the trauma of poverty can be incredibly harsh.

What I didn’t see were lots of people with antisocial personality disorder or diagnoses of malingering. That may surprise people. There’s an idea that everybody in jail is a liar and lacks empathy. I didn’t experience that. People in jail are doing whatever they can to survive.
 

What treatments are offered to these patients?

In New York City, all of the typical treatments that you would imagine for people with serious mental illness are offered in the jails: individual and group psychotherapy, medication management, substance use treatment, social work services, even creative art therapy. Many other jails are not able to do even a fraction of that.

In many jails there also has to be a lot of supportive therapy. This involves trying to help people get through a very anxiety-provoking and difficult time, when they frequently don’t know when they are going to be able to leave. I felt the same way as many of the correction officers – that the best thing for these patients is to be out of the jail, to be out of that toxic environment.
 

We have heard for years that the jail system and prison system is the new psych ward. Can you speak to how this occurred and the influence of deinstitutionalization?

When deinstitutionalization happened, there were not enough community agencies available that were equipped to take care of patients who were previously in hospitals. But I think a larger contributor to the overpopulation of people with mental illness in jails and prisons was the war on drugs. It disproportionately affected people who were poor, of color, and who had mental illness. Mental illness and substance use frequently occur together.

At the same time as deinstitutionalization and the war on drugs, there was also a tightening up of the laws relating to admission to psychiatric hospitals. The civil rights movement helped define the requirements that someone had to be dangerous and mentally ill in order to get admitted against their will. While this was an important protection against more indiscriminate admissions of the past, it made it harder to get into hospitals; the state hospitals were closed but the hospitals that were open were now harder to get into.
 

You mentioned that prisoners are undergoing trauma every day. Is this inherent to punitive confinement, or is it something that can be improved upon in the United States?

It’s important that you said “in the United States” as part of that question. Our approach to incarceration in the U.S. is heavily punishment based.
 

Compared to somewhere like Scandinavia, where inmates and prisoners are given a lot more support?

Or England or Canada. The challenge with comparing the United States to Scandinavia is that we are socioeconomically, demographically, and politically so different. But yes, my understanding about the Scandinavian systems are that they have a much more rehabilitative approach to incarceration. Until the U.S. can reframe the goals of incarceration to focus on helping individuals behave in a socially acceptable way, rather than destroy their sense of self-worth, we will continue to see the impact of trauma on generations of lives.

Now, that doesn’t mean that every jail and prison in this country is abusive. But taking away autonomy and freedom, applying inconsistent rules, using solitary confinement, and getting limited to no access to people you love all really destroy a person’s ability to behave in a way that society has deemed acceptable.
 

Assuming that mental health professionals such as yourself have a more compassionate understanding of what’s going on psychologically with the inmates, are you often at odds with law enforcement in the philosophy behind incarceration?

That’s an interesting question. When I moved from the hospital to the jail, I thought that I would run into a lot of resistance from the correction officer staff. I just thought, we’re coming at this from a totally different perspective: I’m trying to help these people and see if there’s a way to safely get them out, and you guys want to punish them.

It turns out that I was very misguided in that view, because it seemed to me that everybody wanted to do what was right for the patient. My perspective about what’s right involved respectful care, building self-esteem, treating illness. The correction officer’s perspective seemed to be keeping them safe, making sure that they can get through the system as quickly as possible, not having them get into fights. Our perspectives may have been different, but the goals were the same. I want all that stuff that the officers want as well.

It’s important to remember that the people who work inside jails and prisons are usually not the ones who are making the policies about who goes in. I haven’t had a lot of exposure working directly with many policymakers. I imagine that my opinions might differ from theirs in some regards.
 

For those working in the U.S. psychiatric healthcare system, what do you want them to know about mental health care in the correctional setting?

Patients in correctional settings are mostly the same patients seen in the public mental health system setting. The vast majority of people who spend time in jail or prison return to the community. But there’s a difference in how patients are perceived by many mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, depending on whether they have criminal justice experience or not.

I would encourage everybody to try to keep an open mind and remember that these patients are cycling through a very difficult system, for many reasons that are at least rooted in community trauma and poverty, and that it doesn’t change the nature of who they are. It doesn’t change that they’re still human beings and they still deserve care and support and treatment.

In this country, patients with mental illness and incarceration histories are so vulnerable and are often black, brown, and poor. It’s an incredible and disturbing representation of American society. But I feel like you can help a lot by getting involved in the frequently dysfunctional criminal justice system. Psychiatrists and other providers have an opportunity to fix things from the inside out.
 

What’s your new role at CASES?

I’m the chief medical officer at CASES [Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services]. It’s a large community organization that provides mental health treatment, case management, employment and education services, alternatives to incarceration, and general support for people who have experienced criminal justice involvement. CASES began operating in the 1960s, and around 2000 it began developing programs specifically addressing the connection between serious mental illness and criminal justice system involvement. For example, we take care of the patients who are coming out of the jails or prisons, or managing patients that the courts have said should go to treatment instead of incarceration.

I took the job because as conditions for individuals with serious mental illness started to improve in the jails, I started to hear more frequently from patients that they were getting better treatment in the jail than out in the community. That did not sit well with me and seemed to be almost the opposite of how it should be.

I also have never been an outpatient public psychiatrist. Most of the patients I treat live most of their lives outside of a jail or a hospital. It felt really important for me to understand the lives of these patients and to see if all of the resistance that I’ve heard from community psychiatrists about taking care of people who have been in jail is really true or not.

It was a logical transition for me. I’m following the patients and basically deinstitutionalizing [them] myself.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

Jails provide ideal conditions for the spread of COVID-19, as made clear by the distressing stories coming out of New York City. Beyond the very substantial risks posed by the virus itself, practitioners tasked with attending to the large proportion of inmates with mental illness now face additional challenges.

Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Elizabeth Ford, MD, former chief of psychiatry for NYC Health + Hospitals/Correctional Health Services and current chief medical officer for the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), a community organization focused on the needs of people touched by the criminal justice system, to find out how COVID-19 may be reshaping the mental health care of incarcerated patients. As noted by Ford, who authored the 2017 memoir Sometimes Amazing Things Happen: Heartbreak and Hope on the Bellevue Hospital Psychiatric Prison Ward, the unique vulnerabilities of this population were evident well before the coronavirus pandemic’s arrival on our shores.
 

What are the unique health and mental health challenges that can arise in correctional facilities during crises like this, in particular, infectious crises? Or are we still learning this as COVID-19 spreads?

I think it’s important to say that they are still learning it, and I don’t want to speak for them. I left Correctional Health Services on Feb. 14, and we weren’t aware of [all the risks posed by COVID-19] at that point.

I worked in the jail proper for five and a half years. Prior to that I spent a decade at Bellevue Hospital, where I took care of the same patients, who were still incarcerated but also hospitalized. In those years, the closest I ever came to managing something like this was Superstorm Sandy, which obviously had much different health implications.

All of the things that the community is struggling with in terms of the virus also apply in jails and prisons: identifying people who are sick, keeping healthy people from getting sick, preventing sick people from getting worse, separating populations, treatment options, testing options, making sure people follow the appropriate hygiene recommendations. It’s just amplified immensely because these are closed systems that tend to be poorly sanitized, crowded, and frequently forgotten or minimized in public health and political conversations.

A really important distinction is that individuals who are incarcerated do not have control over their behavior in the way that they would in the outside world. They may want to wash their hands frequently and to stay six feet away from everybody, but they can’t because the environment doesn’t allow for that. I know that everyone – correctional officers, health staff, incarcerated individuals, the city – is trying to figure out how to do those things in the jail. The primary challenge is that you don’t have the ability to do the things that you know are right to prevent the spread of the infection.
 

I know you can’t speak to what’s going on at specific jails at the moment, but what sort of psychiatric measures would a jail system put forth in a time like this?

It’s a good question, because like everybody, they’re having to balance the safety of the staff and the patients. Mental health interventions are mostly in person and very time intensive, and social distancing guidelines don’t allow for that now.

I expect that the jails are trying to stratify patients based on severity, both physical and psychological, although increasingly it’s likely harder to separate those who are sick from those who aren’t. In areas where patients are sick, I think the mental health staff are likely doing as much intervention as they can safely, including remote work like telehealth. Telehealth actually got its start in prisons, because they couldn’t get enough providers to come in and do the work in person.
 

I’ve read a lot of the criticism around this, specifically at Rikers Island, where inmates are still closely seated at dining tables, with no possibility of social distancing. [Editor’s note: At the time of this writing, Rikers Island experienced its first inmate death due to COVID-19.] But I see the other side of it. What are jails supposed to do when limited to such a confined space?

That’s correct. I think it is hard for someone who has not lived or worked intensely in these settings to understand how difficult it can be to implement even the most basic hygiene precautions. There are all sorts of efforts happening to create more space, to reduce admissions coming into the jail, to try to expedite discharges out, to offer a lot more sanitation options. I think they may have opened up a jail that was empty to allow for more space.
 

In a recent Medscape commentary, Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, from Columbia University detailed how a crisis like this may affect those in different tiers of mental illness. Interestingly, there are data showing that those with serious mental illness – schizophrenia, severe mania – often aren’t panicked by disasters. I assume that a sizable percentage of the jail population has severe mental illness, so I was curious about what your experience is, about how they may handle it psychologically.

The rate of serious mental illness in jail is roughly 16% or so, which is three or four times higher than the general population.

Although I don’t know if these kinds of crises differentially affect people with serious mental illness, I do believe very strongly that situations like this, for those who are and who are not incarcerated, can exacerbate or cause symptoms like anxiety, depression, and elevated levels of fear – fear about the unknown, fear of illness or death, fear of isolation.

For people who are incarcerated and who understandably may struggle with trusting the system that is supposed to be keeping them safe, I am concerned that this kind of situation will make that lack of trust worse. I worry that when they get out of jail they will be less inclined to seek help. I imagine that the staff in the jails are doing as much as they can to support the patients, but the staff are also likely experiencing some version of the abandonment and frustration that the patients may feel.

I’ve also seen – not in a crisis of this magnitude but in other crisis situations – that a community really develops among everybody in incarcerated settings. A shared crisis forces everybody to work together in ways that they may not have before. That includes more tolerance for behaviors, more understanding of differences, including mental illness and developmental delay. More compassion.
 

Do you mean between prisoners and staff? Among everybody?

Everybody. In all of the different relationships you can imagine.
 

That speaks to the vulnerability and good nature in all of us. It’s encouraging.

It is, although it’s devastating to me that it happens because they collectively feel so neglected and forgotten. Shared trauma can bind people together very closely.
 

What psychiatric conditions did you typically see in New York City jails?

For the many people with serious mental illness, it’s generally schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses and bipolar disorder – really severe illnesses that do not do well in confinement settings. There’s a lot of anxiety and depression, some that rises to the level of serious illness. There is near universal substance use among the population.

There is also almost universal trauma exposure, whether early-childhood experiences or the ongoing trauma of incarceration. Not everyone has PTSD, but almost everyone behaves in a traumatized way. As you know, in the United States, incarceration is very racially and socioeconomically biased; the trauma of poverty can be incredibly harsh.

What I didn’t see were lots of people with antisocial personality disorder or diagnoses of malingering. That may surprise people. There’s an idea that everybody in jail is a liar and lacks empathy. I didn’t experience that. People in jail are doing whatever they can to survive.
 

What treatments are offered to these patients?

In New York City, all of the typical treatments that you would imagine for people with serious mental illness are offered in the jails: individual and group psychotherapy, medication management, substance use treatment, social work services, even creative art therapy. Many other jails are not able to do even a fraction of that.

In many jails there also has to be a lot of supportive therapy. This involves trying to help people get through a very anxiety-provoking and difficult time, when they frequently don’t know when they are going to be able to leave. I felt the same way as many of the correction officers – that the best thing for these patients is to be out of the jail, to be out of that toxic environment.
 

We have heard for years that the jail system and prison system is the new psych ward. Can you speak to how this occurred and the influence of deinstitutionalization?

When deinstitutionalization happened, there were not enough community agencies available that were equipped to take care of patients who were previously in hospitals. But I think a larger contributor to the overpopulation of people with mental illness in jails and prisons was the war on drugs. It disproportionately affected people who were poor, of color, and who had mental illness. Mental illness and substance use frequently occur together.

At the same time as deinstitutionalization and the war on drugs, there was also a tightening up of the laws relating to admission to psychiatric hospitals. The civil rights movement helped define the requirements that someone had to be dangerous and mentally ill in order to get admitted against their will. While this was an important protection against more indiscriminate admissions of the past, it made it harder to get into hospitals; the state hospitals were closed but the hospitals that were open were now harder to get into.
 

You mentioned that prisoners are undergoing trauma every day. Is this inherent to punitive confinement, or is it something that can be improved upon in the United States?

It’s important that you said “in the United States” as part of that question. Our approach to incarceration in the U.S. is heavily punishment based.
 

Compared to somewhere like Scandinavia, where inmates and prisoners are given a lot more support?

Or England or Canada. The challenge with comparing the United States to Scandinavia is that we are socioeconomically, demographically, and politically so different. But yes, my understanding about the Scandinavian systems are that they have a much more rehabilitative approach to incarceration. Until the U.S. can reframe the goals of incarceration to focus on helping individuals behave in a socially acceptable way, rather than destroy their sense of self-worth, we will continue to see the impact of trauma on generations of lives.

Now, that doesn’t mean that every jail and prison in this country is abusive. But taking away autonomy and freedom, applying inconsistent rules, using solitary confinement, and getting limited to no access to people you love all really destroy a person’s ability to behave in a way that society has deemed acceptable.
 

Assuming that mental health professionals such as yourself have a more compassionate understanding of what’s going on psychologically with the inmates, are you often at odds with law enforcement in the philosophy behind incarceration?

That’s an interesting question. When I moved from the hospital to the jail, I thought that I would run into a lot of resistance from the correction officer staff. I just thought, we’re coming at this from a totally different perspective: I’m trying to help these people and see if there’s a way to safely get them out, and you guys want to punish them.

It turns out that I was very misguided in that view, because it seemed to me that everybody wanted to do what was right for the patient. My perspective about what’s right involved respectful care, building self-esteem, treating illness. The correction officer’s perspective seemed to be keeping them safe, making sure that they can get through the system as quickly as possible, not having them get into fights. Our perspectives may have been different, but the goals were the same. I want all that stuff that the officers want as well.

It’s important to remember that the people who work inside jails and prisons are usually not the ones who are making the policies about who goes in. I haven’t had a lot of exposure working directly with many policymakers. I imagine that my opinions might differ from theirs in some regards.
 

For those working in the U.S. psychiatric healthcare system, what do you want them to know about mental health care in the correctional setting?

Patients in correctional settings are mostly the same patients seen in the public mental health system setting. The vast majority of people who spend time in jail or prison return to the community. But there’s a difference in how patients are perceived by many mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, depending on whether they have criminal justice experience or not.

I would encourage everybody to try to keep an open mind and remember that these patients are cycling through a very difficult system, for many reasons that are at least rooted in community trauma and poverty, and that it doesn’t change the nature of who they are. It doesn’t change that they’re still human beings and they still deserve care and support and treatment.

In this country, patients with mental illness and incarceration histories are so vulnerable and are often black, brown, and poor. It’s an incredible and disturbing representation of American society. But I feel like you can help a lot by getting involved in the frequently dysfunctional criminal justice system. Psychiatrists and other providers have an opportunity to fix things from the inside out.
 

What’s your new role at CASES?

I’m the chief medical officer at CASES [Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services]. It’s a large community organization that provides mental health treatment, case management, employment and education services, alternatives to incarceration, and general support for people who have experienced criminal justice involvement. CASES began operating in the 1960s, and around 2000 it began developing programs specifically addressing the connection between serious mental illness and criminal justice system involvement. For example, we take care of the patients who are coming out of the jails or prisons, or managing patients that the courts have said should go to treatment instead of incarceration.

I took the job because as conditions for individuals with serious mental illness started to improve in the jails, I started to hear more frequently from patients that they were getting better treatment in the jail than out in the community. That did not sit well with me and seemed to be almost the opposite of how it should be.

I also have never been an outpatient public psychiatrist. Most of the patients I treat live most of their lives outside of a jail or a hospital. It felt really important for me to understand the lives of these patients and to see if all of the resistance that I’ve heard from community psychiatrists about taking care of people who have been in jail is really true or not.

It was a logical transition for me. I’m following the patients and basically deinstitutionalizing [them] myself.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

Jails provide ideal conditions for the spread of COVID-19, as made clear by the distressing stories coming out of New York City. Beyond the very substantial risks posed by the virus itself, practitioners tasked with attending to the large proportion of inmates with mental illness now face additional challenges.

Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Elizabeth Ford, MD, former chief of psychiatry for NYC Health + Hospitals/Correctional Health Services and current chief medical officer for the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), a community organization focused on the needs of people touched by the criminal justice system, to find out how COVID-19 may be reshaping the mental health care of incarcerated patients. As noted by Ford, who authored the 2017 memoir Sometimes Amazing Things Happen: Heartbreak and Hope on the Bellevue Hospital Psychiatric Prison Ward, the unique vulnerabilities of this population were evident well before the coronavirus pandemic’s arrival on our shores.
 

What are the unique health and mental health challenges that can arise in correctional facilities during crises like this, in particular, infectious crises? Or are we still learning this as COVID-19 spreads?

I think it’s important to say that they are still learning it, and I don’t want to speak for them. I left Correctional Health Services on Feb. 14, and we weren’t aware of [all the risks posed by COVID-19] at that point.

I worked in the jail proper for five and a half years. Prior to that I spent a decade at Bellevue Hospital, where I took care of the same patients, who were still incarcerated but also hospitalized. In those years, the closest I ever came to managing something like this was Superstorm Sandy, which obviously had much different health implications.

All of the things that the community is struggling with in terms of the virus also apply in jails and prisons: identifying people who are sick, keeping healthy people from getting sick, preventing sick people from getting worse, separating populations, treatment options, testing options, making sure people follow the appropriate hygiene recommendations. It’s just amplified immensely because these are closed systems that tend to be poorly sanitized, crowded, and frequently forgotten or minimized in public health and political conversations.

A really important distinction is that individuals who are incarcerated do not have control over their behavior in the way that they would in the outside world. They may want to wash their hands frequently and to stay six feet away from everybody, but they can’t because the environment doesn’t allow for that. I know that everyone – correctional officers, health staff, incarcerated individuals, the city – is trying to figure out how to do those things in the jail. The primary challenge is that you don’t have the ability to do the things that you know are right to prevent the spread of the infection.
 

I know you can’t speak to what’s going on at specific jails at the moment, but what sort of psychiatric measures would a jail system put forth in a time like this?

It’s a good question, because like everybody, they’re having to balance the safety of the staff and the patients. Mental health interventions are mostly in person and very time intensive, and social distancing guidelines don’t allow for that now.

I expect that the jails are trying to stratify patients based on severity, both physical and psychological, although increasingly it’s likely harder to separate those who are sick from those who aren’t. In areas where patients are sick, I think the mental health staff are likely doing as much intervention as they can safely, including remote work like telehealth. Telehealth actually got its start in prisons, because they couldn’t get enough providers to come in and do the work in person.
 

I’ve read a lot of the criticism around this, specifically at Rikers Island, where inmates are still closely seated at dining tables, with no possibility of social distancing. [Editor’s note: At the time of this writing, Rikers Island experienced its first inmate death due to COVID-19.] But I see the other side of it. What are jails supposed to do when limited to such a confined space?

That’s correct. I think it is hard for someone who has not lived or worked intensely in these settings to understand how difficult it can be to implement even the most basic hygiene precautions. There are all sorts of efforts happening to create more space, to reduce admissions coming into the jail, to try to expedite discharges out, to offer a lot more sanitation options. I think they may have opened up a jail that was empty to allow for more space.
 

In a recent Medscape commentary, Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, from Columbia University detailed how a crisis like this may affect those in different tiers of mental illness. Interestingly, there are data showing that those with serious mental illness – schizophrenia, severe mania – often aren’t panicked by disasters. I assume that a sizable percentage of the jail population has severe mental illness, so I was curious about what your experience is, about how they may handle it psychologically.

The rate of serious mental illness in jail is roughly 16% or so, which is three or four times higher than the general population.

Although I don’t know if these kinds of crises differentially affect people with serious mental illness, I do believe very strongly that situations like this, for those who are and who are not incarcerated, can exacerbate or cause symptoms like anxiety, depression, and elevated levels of fear – fear about the unknown, fear of illness or death, fear of isolation.

For people who are incarcerated and who understandably may struggle with trusting the system that is supposed to be keeping them safe, I am concerned that this kind of situation will make that lack of trust worse. I worry that when they get out of jail they will be less inclined to seek help. I imagine that the staff in the jails are doing as much as they can to support the patients, but the staff are also likely experiencing some version of the abandonment and frustration that the patients may feel.

I’ve also seen – not in a crisis of this magnitude but in other crisis situations – that a community really develops among everybody in incarcerated settings. A shared crisis forces everybody to work together in ways that they may not have before. That includes more tolerance for behaviors, more understanding of differences, including mental illness and developmental delay. More compassion.
 

Do you mean between prisoners and staff? Among everybody?

Everybody. In all of the different relationships you can imagine.
 

That speaks to the vulnerability and good nature in all of us. It’s encouraging.

It is, although it’s devastating to me that it happens because they collectively feel so neglected and forgotten. Shared trauma can bind people together very closely.
 

What psychiatric conditions did you typically see in New York City jails?

For the many people with serious mental illness, it’s generally schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses and bipolar disorder – really severe illnesses that do not do well in confinement settings. There’s a lot of anxiety and depression, some that rises to the level of serious illness. There is near universal substance use among the population.

There is also almost universal trauma exposure, whether early-childhood experiences or the ongoing trauma of incarceration. Not everyone has PTSD, but almost everyone behaves in a traumatized way. As you know, in the United States, incarceration is very racially and socioeconomically biased; the trauma of poverty can be incredibly harsh.

What I didn’t see were lots of people with antisocial personality disorder or diagnoses of malingering. That may surprise people. There’s an idea that everybody in jail is a liar and lacks empathy. I didn’t experience that. People in jail are doing whatever they can to survive.
 

What treatments are offered to these patients?

In New York City, all of the typical treatments that you would imagine for people with serious mental illness are offered in the jails: individual and group psychotherapy, medication management, substance use treatment, social work services, even creative art therapy. Many other jails are not able to do even a fraction of that.

In many jails there also has to be a lot of supportive therapy. This involves trying to help people get through a very anxiety-provoking and difficult time, when they frequently don’t know when they are going to be able to leave. I felt the same way as many of the correction officers – that the best thing for these patients is to be out of the jail, to be out of that toxic environment.
 

We have heard for years that the jail system and prison system is the new psych ward. Can you speak to how this occurred and the influence of deinstitutionalization?

When deinstitutionalization happened, there were not enough community agencies available that were equipped to take care of patients who were previously in hospitals. But I think a larger contributor to the overpopulation of people with mental illness in jails and prisons was the war on drugs. It disproportionately affected people who were poor, of color, and who had mental illness. Mental illness and substance use frequently occur together.

At the same time as deinstitutionalization and the war on drugs, there was also a tightening up of the laws relating to admission to psychiatric hospitals. The civil rights movement helped define the requirements that someone had to be dangerous and mentally ill in order to get admitted against their will. While this was an important protection against more indiscriminate admissions of the past, it made it harder to get into hospitals; the state hospitals were closed but the hospitals that were open were now harder to get into.
 

You mentioned that prisoners are undergoing trauma every day. Is this inherent to punitive confinement, or is it something that can be improved upon in the United States?

It’s important that you said “in the United States” as part of that question. Our approach to incarceration in the U.S. is heavily punishment based.
 

Compared to somewhere like Scandinavia, where inmates and prisoners are given a lot more support?

Or England or Canada. The challenge with comparing the United States to Scandinavia is that we are socioeconomically, demographically, and politically so different. But yes, my understanding about the Scandinavian systems are that they have a much more rehabilitative approach to incarceration. Until the U.S. can reframe the goals of incarceration to focus on helping individuals behave in a socially acceptable way, rather than destroy their sense of self-worth, we will continue to see the impact of trauma on generations of lives.

Now, that doesn’t mean that every jail and prison in this country is abusive. But taking away autonomy and freedom, applying inconsistent rules, using solitary confinement, and getting limited to no access to people you love all really destroy a person’s ability to behave in a way that society has deemed acceptable.
 

Assuming that mental health professionals such as yourself have a more compassionate understanding of what’s going on psychologically with the inmates, are you often at odds with law enforcement in the philosophy behind incarceration?

That’s an interesting question. When I moved from the hospital to the jail, I thought that I would run into a lot of resistance from the correction officer staff. I just thought, we’re coming at this from a totally different perspective: I’m trying to help these people and see if there’s a way to safely get them out, and you guys want to punish them.

It turns out that I was very misguided in that view, because it seemed to me that everybody wanted to do what was right for the patient. My perspective about what’s right involved respectful care, building self-esteem, treating illness. The correction officer’s perspective seemed to be keeping them safe, making sure that they can get through the system as quickly as possible, not having them get into fights. Our perspectives may have been different, but the goals were the same. I want all that stuff that the officers want as well.

It’s important to remember that the people who work inside jails and prisons are usually not the ones who are making the policies about who goes in. I haven’t had a lot of exposure working directly with many policymakers. I imagine that my opinions might differ from theirs in some regards.
 

For those working in the U.S. psychiatric healthcare system, what do you want them to know about mental health care in the correctional setting?

Patients in correctional settings are mostly the same patients seen in the public mental health system setting. The vast majority of people who spend time in jail or prison return to the community. But there’s a difference in how patients are perceived by many mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, depending on whether they have criminal justice experience or not.

I would encourage everybody to try to keep an open mind and remember that these patients are cycling through a very difficult system, for many reasons that are at least rooted in community trauma and poverty, and that it doesn’t change the nature of who they are. It doesn’t change that they’re still human beings and they still deserve care and support and treatment.

In this country, patients with mental illness and incarceration histories are so vulnerable and are often black, brown, and poor. It’s an incredible and disturbing representation of American society. But I feel like you can help a lot by getting involved in the frequently dysfunctional criminal justice system. Psychiatrists and other providers have an opportunity to fix things from the inside out.
 

What’s your new role at CASES?

I’m the chief medical officer at CASES [Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services]. It’s a large community organization that provides mental health treatment, case management, employment and education services, alternatives to incarceration, and general support for people who have experienced criminal justice involvement. CASES began operating in the 1960s, and around 2000 it began developing programs specifically addressing the connection between serious mental illness and criminal justice system involvement. For example, we take care of the patients who are coming out of the jails or prisons, or managing patients that the courts have said should go to treatment instead of incarceration.

I took the job because as conditions for individuals with serious mental illness started to improve in the jails, I started to hear more frequently from patients that they were getting better treatment in the jail than out in the community. That did not sit well with me and seemed to be almost the opposite of how it should be.

I also have never been an outpatient public psychiatrist. Most of the patients I treat live most of their lives outside of a jail or a hospital. It felt really important for me to understand the lives of these patients and to see if all of the resistance that I’ve heard from community psychiatrists about taking care of people who have been in jail is really true or not.

It was a logical transition for me. I’m following the patients and basically deinstitutionalizing [them] myself.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.

The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.

In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.

For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.

“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.

Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.

He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.

“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.

“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.

The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.

In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.

For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.

“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.

Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.

He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.

“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.

“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.

The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.

In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.

For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.

“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.

Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.

He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.

“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.

“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiac troponins by high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTn) should be considered “an ally and a crucial diagnostic and prognostic aid” during the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiologists in the United Kingdom advise in a recently published viewpoint.

The tests can be used to “inform the triage of patients to critical care, guide the use of supportive treatments, and facilitate targeted cardiac investigations in those most likely to benefit,” Nicholas Mills, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. He is senior author on the viewpoint published online April 6 in the journal Circulation.

Older adults and those with a history of underlying cardiovascular disease appear to be at greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. “From early reports it is clear that elevated cardiac troponin concentrations predict in-hospital mortality,” said Mills.

In a recent report on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, for example, cardiac injury (hs-cTn above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit) was seen in 1 in 5 patients and was an independent predictor of dying in the hospital. Mortality was 10-fold higher in those with cardiac injury on presentation.

Elevated cardiac troponin in the setting of COVID-19, Mills said, “may reflect illness severity with myocardial injury arising due to myocardial oxygen supply–demand imbalance. Or it may be due to direct cardiac involvement through viral myocarditis or stress cardiomyopathy, or where the prothrombotic and proinflammatory state is precipitating acute coronary syndromes.”

In their viewpoint, the authors note that circulating cTn is a marker of myocardial injury, “including but not limited to myocardial infarction or myocarditis, and the clinical relevance of this distinction has never been so clear.”

Therefore, the consequence of not measuring cardiac troponin may be to “ignore the plethora of ischemic and nonischemic causes” of myocardial injury related to COVID-19. “Clinicians who have used troponin measurement as a binary test for myocardial infarction independent of clinical context and those who consider an elevated cardiac troponin concentration to be a mandate for invasive coronary angiography must recalibrate,” they write.

“Rather than encouraging avoidance of troponin testing, we must harness the unheralded engagement from the cardiovascular community due to COVID-19 to better understand the utility of this essential biomarker and to educate clinicians on its interpretation and implications for prognosis and clinical decision making.”
 

Based on “same logic” as recent ACC guidance

The viewpoint was to some extent a response to a recent informal guidance from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) that advised caution in use of troponin and natriuretic peptide tests in patients with COVID-19.

Even so, that ACC guidance and the new viewpoint in Circulation are based on the “same logic,” James Januzzi Jr, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. Both documents:

• Point out that troponins are frequently abnormal in patients with severe cases of COVID-19
• Caution that clinicians should not equate an abnormal hs-cTn with acute myocardial infarction
• Note that, in most cases, hs-cTn elevations are a result of noncoronary mechanisms
• Recognize the potential risk to caregivers and the continued unchecked spread of SARS-CoV-2 related to downstream testing that might not be needed

“The Circulation opinion piece states that clinicians often use troponin as a binary test for myocardial infarction and a mandate for downstream testing, suggesting clinicians will need to recalibrate that approach, something I agree with and which is the central message of the ACC position,” Januzzi said.

Probably the biggest difference between the two documents, he said, is in the Circulation authors’ apparent enthusiasm to use hs-cTn as a tool to judge disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

It’s been known for more than a decade that myocardial injury is “an important risk predictor” in critical illness, Januzzi explained. “So the link between cardiac injury and outcomes in critical illness is nothing new. The difference is the fact we are seeing so many patients with COVID-19 all at once, and the authors suggest that using troponin might help in triage decision making.”

“There may be [such] a role here, but the data have not been systematically collected, and whether troponin truly adds something beyond information already available at the bedside — for example, does it add anything not already obvious at the bedside? — has not yet been conclusively proven,” Januzzi cautioned.

“As well, there are no prospective data supporting troponin as a trigger for ICU triage or for deciding on specific treatments.”
 

Positive cTn status “common” in COVID-19 patients

In his experience, Barry Cohen, MD, Morristown Medical Center, New Jersey, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, that positive cTn status is “common in COVID-19 patients and appears to have prognostic value, not only in type 1 MI due to atherothrombotic disease (related to a proinflammatory and prothrombotic state), but more frequently type 2 MI (supply–demand mismatch), viral myocarditis, coronary microvascular ischemia, stress cardiomyopathy or tachyarrhythmias.”

Moreover, Cohen said, hs-cTn “has identified patients at increased risk for ventilation support (invasive and noninvasive), acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and mortality.”

Echoing both the ACC document and the Circulation report, Cohen also said hs-cTn measurements “appear to help risk stratify COVID-19 patients, but clearly do not mean that a troponin-positive patient needs to go to the cath lab and be treated as having acute coronary syndrome. Only a minority of these patients require this intervention.”

Mills discloses receiving honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, and LumiraDx. Januzzi has previously disclosed receiving personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Pfizer, Merck, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; grants and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Abbott, and Janssen; and grants from Singulex and Prevencio. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiac troponins by high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTn) should be considered “an ally and a crucial diagnostic and prognostic aid” during the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiologists in the United Kingdom advise in a recently published viewpoint.

The tests can be used to “inform the triage of patients to critical care, guide the use of supportive treatments, and facilitate targeted cardiac investigations in those most likely to benefit,” Nicholas Mills, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. He is senior author on the viewpoint published online April 6 in the journal Circulation.

Older adults and those with a history of underlying cardiovascular disease appear to be at greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. “From early reports it is clear that elevated cardiac troponin concentrations predict in-hospital mortality,” said Mills.

In a recent report on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, for example, cardiac injury (hs-cTn above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit) was seen in 1 in 5 patients and was an independent predictor of dying in the hospital. Mortality was 10-fold higher in those with cardiac injury on presentation.

Elevated cardiac troponin in the setting of COVID-19, Mills said, “may reflect illness severity with myocardial injury arising due to myocardial oxygen supply–demand imbalance. Or it may be due to direct cardiac involvement through viral myocarditis or stress cardiomyopathy, or where the prothrombotic and proinflammatory state is precipitating acute coronary syndromes.”

In their viewpoint, the authors note that circulating cTn is a marker of myocardial injury, “including but not limited to myocardial infarction or myocarditis, and the clinical relevance of this distinction has never been so clear.”

Therefore, the consequence of not measuring cardiac troponin may be to “ignore the plethora of ischemic and nonischemic causes” of myocardial injury related to COVID-19. “Clinicians who have used troponin measurement as a binary test for myocardial infarction independent of clinical context and those who consider an elevated cardiac troponin concentration to be a mandate for invasive coronary angiography must recalibrate,” they write.

“Rather than encouraging avoidance of troponin testing, we must harness the unheralded engagement from the cardiovascular community due to COVID-19 to better understand the utility of this essential biomarker and to educate clinicians on its interpretation and implications for prognosis and clinical decision making.”
 

Based on “same logic” as recent ACC guidance

The viewpoint was to some extent a response to a recent informal guidance from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) that advised caution in use of troponin and natriuretic peptide tests in patients with COVID-19.

Even so, that ACC guidance and the new viewpoint in Circulation are based on the “same logic,” James Januzzi Jr, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. Both documents:

• Point out that troponins are frequently abnormal in patients with severe cases of COVID-19
• Caution that clinicians should not equate an abnormal hs-cTn with acute myocardial infarction
• Note that, in most cases, hs-cTn elevations are a result of noncoronary mechanisms
• Recognize the potential risk to caregivers and the continued unchecked spread of SARS-CoV-2 related to downstream testing that might not be needed

“The Circulation opinion piece states that clinicians often use troponin as a binary test for myocardial infarction and a mandate for downstream testing, suggesting clinicians will need to recalibrate that approach, something I agree with and which is the central message of the ACC position,” Januzzi said.

Probably the biggest difference between the two documents, he said, is in the Circulation authors’ apparent enthusiasm to use hs-cTn as a tool to judge disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

It’s been known for more than a decade that myocardial injury is “an important risk predictor” in critical illness, Januzzi explained. “So the link between cardiac injury and outcomes in critical illness is nothing new. The difference is the fact we are seeing so many patients with COVID-19 all at once, and the authors suggest that using troponin might help in triage decision making.”

“There may be [such] a role here, but the data have not been systematically collected, and whether troponin truly adds something beyond information already available at the bedside — for example, does it add anything not already obvious at the bedside? — has not yet been conclusively proven,” Januzzi cautioned.

“As well, there are no prospective data supporting troponin as a trigger for ICU triage or for deciding on specific treatments.”
 

Positive cTn status “common” in COVID-19 patients

In his experience, Barry Cohen, MD, Morristown Medical Center, New Jersey, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, that positive cTn status is “common in COVID-19 patients and appears to have prognostic value, not only in type 1 MI due to atherothrombotic disease (related to a proinflammatory and prothrombotic state), but more frequently type 2 MI (supply–demand mismatch), viral myocarditis, coronary microvascular ischemia, stress cardiomyopathy or tachyarrhythmias.”

Moreover, Cohen said, hs-cTn “has identified patients at increased risk for ventilation support (invasive and noninvasive), acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and mortality.”

Echoing both the ACC document and the Circulation report, Cohen also said hs-cTn measurements “appear to help risk stratify COVID-19 patients, but clearly do not mean that a troponin-positive patient needs to go to the cath lab and be treated as having acute coronary syndrome. Only a minority of these patients require this intervention.”

Mills discloses receiving honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, and LumiraDx. Januzzi has previously disclosed receiving personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Pfizer, Merck, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; grants and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Abbott, and Janssen; and grants from Singulex and Prevencio. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiac troponins by high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTn) should be considered “an ally and a crucial diagnostic and prognostic aid” during the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiologists in the United Kingdom advise in a recently published viewpoint.

The tests can be used to “inform the triage of patients to critical care, guide the use of supportive treatments, and facilitate targeted cardiac investigations in those most likely to benefit,” Nicholas Mills, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. He is senior author on the viewpoint published online April 6 in the journal Circulation.

Older adults and those with a history of underlying cardiovascular disease appear to be at greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. “From early reports it is clear that elevated cardiac troponin concentrations predict in-hospital mortality,” said Mills.

In a recent report on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, for example, cardiac injury (hs-cTn above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit) was seen in 1 in 5 patients and was an independent predictor of dying in the hospital. Mortality was 10-fold higher in those with cardiac injury on presentation.

Elevated cardiac troponin in the setting of COVID-19, Mills said, “may reflect illness severity with myocardial injury arising due to myocardial oxygen supply–demand imbalance. Or it may be due to direct cardiac involvement through viral myocarditis or stress cardiomyopathy, or where the prothrombotic and proinflammatory state is precipitating acute coronary syndromes.”

In their viewpoint, the authors note that circulating cTn is a marker of myocardial injury, “including but not limited to myocardial infarction or myocarditis, and the clinical relevance of this distinction has never been so clear.”

Therefore, the consequence of not measuring cardiac troponin may be to “ignore the plethora of ischemic and nonischemic causes” of myocardial injury related to COVID-19. “Clinicians who have used troponin measurement as a binary test for myocardial infarction independent of clinical context and those who consider an elevated cardiac troponin concentration to be a mandate for invasive coronary angiography must recalibrate,” they write.

“Rather than encouraging avoidance of troponin testing, we must harness the unheralded engagement from the cardiovascular community due to COVID-19 to better understand the utility of this essential biomarker and to educate clinicians on its interpretation and implications for prognosis and clinical decision making.”
 

Based on “same logic” as recent ACC guidance

The viewpoint was to some extent a response to a recent informal guidance from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) that advised caution in use of troponin and natriuretic peptide tests in patients with COVID-19.

Even so, that ACC guidance and the new viewpoint in Circulation are based on the “same logic,” James Januzzi Jr, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. Both documents:

• Point out that troponins are frequently abnormal in patients with severe cases of COVID-19
• Caution that clinicians should not equate an abnormal hs-cTn with acute myocardial infarction
• Note that, in most cases, hs-cTn elevations are a result of noncoronary mechanisms
• Recognize the potential risk to caregivers and the continued unchecked spread of SARS-CoV-2 related to downstream testing that might not be needed

“The Circulation opinion piece states that clinicians often use troponin as a binary test for myocardial infarction and a mandate for downstream testing, suggesting clinicians will need to recalibrate that approach, something I agree with and which is the central message of the ACC position,” Januzzi said.

Probably the biggest difference between the two documents, he said, is in the Circulation authors’ apparent enthusiasm to use hs-cTn as a tool to judge disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

It’s been known for more than a decade that myocardial injury is “an important risk predictor” in critical illness, Januzzi explained. “So the link between cardiac injury and outcomes in critical illness is nothing new. The difference is the fact we are seeing so many patients with COVID-19 all at once, and the authors suggest that using troponin might help in triage decision making.”

“There may be [such] a role here, but the data have not been systematically collected, and whether troponin truly adds something beyond information already available at the bedside — for example, does it add anything not already obvious at the bedside? — has not yet been conclusively proven,” Januzzi cautioned.

“As well, there are no prospective data supporting troponin as a trigger for ICU triage or for deciding on specific treatments.”
 

Positive cTn status “common” in COVID-19 patients

In his experience, Barry Cohen, MD, Morristown Medical Center, New Jersey, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, that positive cTn status is “common in COVID-19 patients and appears to have prognostic value, not only in type 1 MI due to atherothrombotic disease (related to a proinflammatory and prothrombotic state), but more frequently type 2 MI (supply–demand mismatch), viral myocarditis, coronary microvascular ischemia, stress cardiomyopathy or tachyarrhythmias.”

Moreover, Cohen said, hs-cTn “has identified patients at increased risk for ventilation support (invasive and noninvasive), acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and mortality.”

Echoing both the ACC document and the Circulation report, Cohen also said hs-cTn measurements “appear to help risk stratify COVID-19 patients, but clearly do not mean that a troponin-positive patient needs to go to the cath lab and be treated as having acute coronary syndrome. Only a minority of these patients require this intervention.”

Mills discloses receiving honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, and LumiraDx. Januzzi has previously disclosed receiving personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Pfizer, Merck, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; grants and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Abbott, and Janssen; and grants from Singulex and Prevencio. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It seems that some glitches would be inevitable. With a sudden shift to videoconferencing in private psychiatric practices, there were bound to be issues with both technology and privacy. One friend told me of such a glitch on the very first day she started telemental health: She was meeting with a patient who was sitting at her kitchen table. Unbeknownst to the patient, her husband walked into the kitchen behind her, fully naked, to get something from the refrigerator. “There was a full moon shot!” my friend said, initially quite shocked, and then eventually amused. As we all cope with a national tragedy and the total upheaval to our personal and professional lives, the stories just keep coming.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

I left work on Friday, March 13, with plans to return on the following Monday to see patients. I had no idea that, by Sunday evening, I would be persuaded that for the safety of all I would need to shut down my real-life psychiatric practice and switch to a videoconferencing venue. I, along with many psychiatrists in Maryland, made this decision after Amy Huberman, MD, posted the following on the Maryland Psychiatric Society (MPS) listserv on Sunday, March 15:

“I want to make a case for starting video sessions with all your patients NOW. There is increasing evidence that the spread of coronavirus is driven primarily by asymptomatic or mildly ill people infected with the virus. Because of this, it’s not good enough to tell your patients not to come in if they have symptoms, or for you not to come into work if you have no symptoms. Even after I sent out a letter two weeks ago warning people not to come in if they had symptoms or had potentially come in contact with someone with COVID-19, several patients with coughs still came to my office, as well as several people who had just been on trips to New York City.

If we want to help slow the spread of this illness so that our health system has a better chance of being able to offer ventilators to the people who need them, we must limit all contacts as much as possible – even of asymptomatic people, given the emerging data.

I am planning to send out a message to all my patients today that they should do the same. Without the president or the media giving clear advice to people about what to do, it’s our job as physicians to do it.”

By that night, I had set up a home office with a blank wall behind me, windows in front of me, and books propping my computer at a height that would not have my patients looking up my nose. For the first time in over 20 years, I dusted my son’s Little League trophies, moved them and a 40,000 baseball card collection against the wall, carried a desk, chair, rug, houseplant, and a small Buddha into a room in which I would have some privacy, and my telepsychiatry practice found a home.

After some research, I registered for a free site called Doxy.me because it was HIPAA compliant and did not require patients to download an application; anyone with a camera on any Internet-enabled phone, computer, or tablet, could click on a link and enter my virtual waiting room. I soon discovered that images on the Doxy.me site are sometimes grainy and sometimes freeze up; in some sessions, we ended up switching to FaceTime, and as government mandates for HIPAA compliance relaxed, I offered to meet on any site that my patients might be comfortable with: if not Doxy.me (which remains my starting place for most sessions), Facetime, Skype, Zoom, or Whatsapp. I have not offered Bluejeans, Google Hangouts, or WebEx, and no one has requested those applications. I keep the phone next to the computer, and some sessions include a few minutes of tech support as I help patients (or they help me) navigate the various sites. In a few sessions, we could not get the audio to work and we used video on one venue while we talked on the phone. I haven’t figured out if the variations in the quality of the connection has to do with my Comcast connection, the fact that these websites are overloaded with users, or that my household now consists of three people, two large monitors, three laptops, two tablets, three cell phone lines (not to mention one dog and a transplanted cat), all going at the same time. The pets do not require any bandwidth, but all the people are talking to screens throughout the workday.

As my colleagues embarked on the same journey, the listserv questions and comments came quickly. What were the best platforms? Was it a good thing or a bad thing to suddenly be in people’s homes? Some felt the extraneous background to be helpful, others found it distracting and intrusive.

How do these sessions get coded for the purpose of billing? There was a tremendous amount of confusion over that, with the initial verdict being that Medicare wanted the place of service changed to “02” and that private insurers want one of two modifiers, and it was anyone’s guess which company wanted which modifier. Then there was the concern that Medicare was paying 25% less, until the MPS staff clarified that full fees would be paid, but the place of service should be filled in as “11” – not “02” – as with regular office visits, and the modifier “95” should be added on the Health Care Finance Administration claim form. We were left to wait and see what gets reimbursed and for what fees.

Could new patients be seen by videoconferencing? Could patients from other states be seen this way if the psychiatrist was not licensed in the state where the patient was calling from? One psychiatrist reported he had a patient in an adjacent state drive over the border into Maryland, but the patient brought her mother and the evaluation included unwanted input from the mom as the session consisted of the patient and her mother yelling at both each other in the car and at the psychiatrist on the screen!

Psychiatrists on the listserv began to comment that treatment sessions were intense and exhausting. I feel the literal face-to-face contact of another person’s head just inches from my own, with full eye contact, often gets to be a lot. No one asks why I’ve moved a trinket (ah, there are no trinkets) or gazes off around the room. I sometimes sit for long periods of time as I don’t even stand to see the patients to the door. Other patients move about or bounce their devices on their laps, and my stomach starts to feel queasy until I ask to have the device adjusted. In some sessions, I find I’m talking to partial heads, or that computer icons cover the patient’s mouth.

Being in people’s lives via screen has been interesting. Unlike my colleague, I have not had any streaking spouses, but I’ve greeted a few family members – often those serving as technical support – and I’ve toured part of a farm, met dogs, guinea pigs, and even a goat. I’ve made brief daily “visits” to a frightened patient in isolation on a COVID hospital unit and had the joy of celebrating the discharge to home. It’s odd to be in a bedroom with a patient, even virtually, and it is interesting to note where they choose to hold their sessions; I’ve had several patients hold sessions from their cars. Seeing my own image in the corner of the screen is also a bit distracting, and in one session, as I saw my own reaction, my patient said, “I knew you were going to make that face!”

The pandemic has usurped most of the activities of all of our lives, and without social interactions, travel, and work in the usual way, life does not hold its usual richness. Many patients have less to say fewer interpersonal strains, and I find myself asking more questions, working harder to fill sessions that used to fill themselves. In a few cases, I have ended the session after half the time as the patient insisted there was nothing to talk about. Many talk about the medical problems they can’t be seen for, what they are doing to keep safe (or not), how they are washing down their groceries, and who they are meeting with by Zoom. Of those who were terribly anxious before, some feel oddly calmer – the world has ramped up to meet their level of anxiety and they feel vindicated. No one thinks they are odd for worrying about germs on door knobs or elevator buttons. What were once neurotic fears are now our real-life reality. Others have been triggered by a paralyzing fear, often with panic attacks, and these sessions are certainly challenging as I figure out which medications will best help, while responding to requests for reassurance. And there is the troublesome aspect of trying to care for others who are fearful while living with the reality that these fears are not extraneous to our own lives: We, too, are scared for ourselves and our families.

For some people, stay-at-home mandates have been easier than for others. People who are naturally introverted, or those with social anxiety, have told me they find this time at home to be a relief. They no longer feel pressured to go out; there is permission to be alone, to read, or watch Netflix. No one is pressuring them to go to parties or look for a Tinder date. For others, the isolation and loneliness have been devastating, causing a range of emotions from being “stir crazy,” to triggering episodes of major depression and severe anxiety.

Health care workers in therapy talk about their fears of being contaminated with coronavirus, about the exposures they’ve had, their fears of bringing the virus home to family, and about the anger – sometimes rage – that their employers are not doing more to protect them.

Few people these past weeks are looking for insight into their patterns of behavior and emotion. Most of life has come to be about survival and not about personal striving. Students who are driven to excel are disappointed to have their scholastic worlds have switched to pass/fail. And for those struggling with milder forms of depression and anxiety, both the patients and I have all been a bit perplexed by losing the usual measures of what feelings are normal in a tragic world and we no longer use socializing as the hallmark that heralds a return to normalcy after a period of withdrawal.

In some aspects, it is not all been bad. I’ve enjoyed watching my neighbors walk by with their dogs through the window behind my computer screen and I’ve felt part of the daily evolution as the cherry tree outside that same window turns from dead brown wood to vibrant pink blossoms. I like the flexibility of my schedule and the sensation I always carry of being rushed has quelled. I take more walks and spend more time with the family members who are held captive with me. The dog, who no longer is left alone for hours each day, is certainly a winner.

Some of my colleagues tell me they are overwhelmed – patients they have not seen for years have returned, people are asking for more frequent sessions, and they are suddenly trying to work at home while homeschooling children. I have had only a few of those requests for crisis care, while new referrals are much quieter than normal. Some of my patients have even said that they simply aren’t comfortable meeting this way and they will see me at the other end of the pandemic. A few people I would have expected to hear from I have not, and I fear that those who have lost their jobs may avoiding the cost of treatment – this group I will reach out to in the coming weeks. A little extra time, however, has given me the opportunity to join the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Mental Health team. And my first attempt at teaching a resident seminar by Zoom has gone well.

For some in the medical field, this has been a horrible and traumatic time; they are worked to exhaustion, and surrounded by distress, death, and personal fear with every shift. For others, life has come to a standstill as the elective procedures that fill their days have virtually stopped. For outpatient psychiatry, it’s been a bit of an in-between, we may feel an odd mix of relevant and useless all at the same time, as our services are appreciated by our patients, but as actual soldiers caring for the ill COVID patients, we are leaving that to our colleagues in the EDs, COVID units, and ICUs. As a physician who has not treated a patient in an ICU for decades, I wish I had something more concrete to contribute to the effort, and at the same time, I’m relieved that I don’t.

And what about the patients? How are they doing with remote psychiatry? Some are clearly flustered or frustrated by the technology issues. Other times sessions go smoothly, and the fact that we are talking through screens gets forgotten. Some like the convenience of not having to drive a far distance and no one misses my crowded parking lot.

Kristen, another doctor’s patient in Illinois, commented: “I appreciate the continuity in care, especially if the alternative is delaying appointments. I think that’s most important. The interaction helps manage added anxiety from isolating as well. I don’t think it diminishes the care I receive; it makes me feel that my doctor is still accessible. One other point, since I have had both telemedicine and in-person appointments with my current psychiatrist, is that during in-person meetings, he is usually on his computer and rarely looks at me or makes eye contact. In virtual meetings, I feel he is much more engaged with me.”

In normal times, I spend a good deal of time encouraging patients to work on building their relationships and community – these connections lead people to healthy and fulfilling lives – and now we talk about how to best be socially distant. We see each other as vectors of disease and to greet a friend with a handshake, much less a hug, would be unthinkable. Will our collective psyches ever recover? For those of us who will survive, that remains to be seen. In the meantime, perhaps we are all being forced to be more flexible and innovative.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

It seems that some glitches would be inevitable. With a sudden shift to videoconferencing in private psychiatric practices, there were bound to be issues with both technology and privacy. One friend told me of such a glitch on the very first day she started telemental health: She was meeting with a patient who was sitting at her kitchen table. Unbeknownst to the patient, her husband walked into the kitchen behind her, fully naked, to get something from the refrigerator. “There was a full moon shot!” my friend said, initially quite shocked, and then eventually amused. As we all cope with a national tragedy and the total upheaval to our personal and professional lives, the stories just keep coming.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

I left work on Friday, March 13, with plans to return on the following Monday to see patients. I had no idea that, by Sunday evening, I would be persuaded that for the safety of all I would need to shut down my real-life psychiatric practice and switch to a videoconferencing venue. I, along with many psychiatrists in Maryland, made this decision after Amy Huberman, MD, posted the following on the Maryland Psychiatric Society (MPS) listserv on Sunday, March 15:

“I want to make a case for starting video sessions with all your patients NOW. There is increasing evidence that the spread of coronavirus is driven primarily by asymptomatic or mildly ill people infected with the virus. Because of this, it’s not good enough to tell your patients not to come in if they have symptoms, or for you not to come into work if you have no symptoms. Even after I sent out a letter two weeks ago warning people not to come in if they had symptoms or had potentially come in contact with someone with COVID-19, several patients with coughs still came to my office, as well as several people who had just been on trips to New York City.

If we want to help slow the spread of this illness so that our health system has a better chance of being able to offer ventilators to the people who need them, we must limit all contacts as much as possible – even of asymptomatic people, given the emerging data.

I am planning to send out a message to all my patients today that they should do the same. Without the president or the media giving clear advice to people about what to do, it’s our job as physicians to do it.”

By that night, I had set up a home office with a blank wall behind me, windows in front of me, and books propping my computer at a height that would not have my patients looking up my nose. For the first time in over 20 years, I dusted my son’s Little League trophies, moved them and a 40,000 baseball card collection against the wall, carried a desk, chair, rug, houseplant, and a small Buddha into a room in which I would have some privacy, and my telepsychiatry practice found a home.

After some research, I registered for a free site called Doxy.me because it was HIPAA compliant and did not require patients to download an application; anyone with a camera on any Internet-enabled phone, computer, or tablet, could click on a link and enter my virtual waiting room. I soon discovered that images on the Doxy.me site are sometimes grainy and sometimes freeze up; in some sessions, we ended up switching to FaceTime, and as government mandates for HIPAA compliance relaxed, I offered to meet on any site that my patients might be comfortable with: if not Doxy.me (which remains my starting place for most sessions), Facetime, Skype, Zoom, or Whatsapp. I have not offered Bluejeans, Google Hangouts, or WebEx, and no one has requested those applications. I keep the phone next to the computer, and some sessions include a few minutes of tech support as I help patients (or they help me) navigate the various sites. In a few sessions, we could not get the audio to work and we used video on one venue while we talked on the phone. I haven’t figured out if the variations in the quality of the connection has to do with my Comcast connection, the fact that these websites are overloaded with users, or that my household now consists of three people, two large monitors, three laptops, two tablets, three cell phone lines (not to mention one dog and a transplanted cat), all going at the same time. The pets do not require any bandwidth, but all the people are talking to screens throughout the workday.

As my colleagues embarked on the same journey, the listserv questions and comments came quickly. What were the best platforms? Was it a good thing or a bad thing to suddenly be in people’s homes? Some felt the extraneous background to be helpful, others found it distracting and intrusive.

How do these sessions get coded for the purpose of billing? There was a tremendous amount of confusion over that, with the initial verdict being that Medicare wanted the place of service changed to “02” and that private insurers want one of two modifiers, and it was anyone’s guess which company wanted which modifier. Then there was the concern that Medicare was paying 25% less, until the MPS staff clarified that full fees would be paid, but the place of service should be filled in as “11” – not “02” – as with regular office visits, and the modifier “95” should be added on the Health Care Finance Administration claim form. We were left to wait and see what gets reimbursed and for what fees.

Could new patients be seen by videoconferencing? Could patients from other states be seen this way if the psychiatrist was not licensed in the state where the patient was calling from? One psychiatrist reported he had a patient in an adjacent state drive over the border into Maryland, but the patient brought her mother and the evaluation included unwanted input from the mom as the session consisted of the patient and her mother yelling at both each other in the car and at the psychiatrist on the screen!

Psychiatrists on the listserv began to comment that treatment sessions were intense and exhausting. I feel the literal face-to-face contact of another person’s head just inches from my own, with full eye contact, often gets to be a lot. No one asks why I’ve moved a trinket (ah, there are no trinkets) or gazes off around the room. I sometimes sit for long periods of time as I don’t even stand to see the patients to the door. Other patients move about or bounce their devices on their laps, and my stomach starts to feel queasy until I ask to have the device adjusted. In some sessions, I find I’m talking to partial heads, or that computer icons cover the patient’s mouth.

Being in people’s lives via screen has been interesting. Unlike my colleague, I have not had any streaking spouses, but I’ve greeted a few family members – often those serving as technical support – and I’ve toured part of a farm, met dogs, guinea pigs, and even a goat. I’ve made brief daily “visits” to a frightened patient in isolation on a COVID hospital unit and had the joy of celebrating the discharge to home. It’s odd to be in a bedroom with a patient, even virtually, and it is interesting to note where they choose to hold their sessions; I’ve had several patients hold sessions from their cars. Seeing my own image in the corner of the screen is also a bit distracting, and in one session, as I saw my own reaction, my patient said, “I knew you were going to make that face!”

The pandemic has usurped most of the activities of all of our lives, and without social interactions, travel, and work in the usual way, life does not hold its usual richness. Many patients have less to say fewer interpersonal strains, and I find myself asking more questions, working harder to fill sessions that used to fill themselves. In a few cases, I have ended the session after half the time as the patient insisted there was nothing to talk about. Many talk about the medical problems they can’t be seen for, what they are doing to keep safe (or not), how they are washing down their groceries, and who they are meeting with by Zoom. Of those who were terribly anxious before, some feel oddly calmer – the world has ramped up to meet their level of anxiety and they feel vindicated. No one thinks they are odd for worrying about germs on door knobs or elevator buttons. What were once neurotic fears are now our real-life reality. Others have been triggered by a paralyzing fear, often with panic attacks, and these sessions are certainly challenging as I figure out which medications will best help, while responding to requests for reassurance. And there is the troublesome aspect of trying to care for others who are fearful while living with the reality that these fears are not extraneous to our own lives: We, too, are scared for ourselves and our families.

For some people, stay-at-home mandates have been easier than for others. People who are naturally introverted, or those with social anxiety, have told me they find this time at home to be a relief. They no longer feel pressured to go out; there is permission to be alone, to read, or watch Netflix. No one is pressuring them to go to parties or look for a Tinder date. For others, the isolation and loneliness have been devastating, causing a range of emotions from being “stir crazy,” to triggering episodes of major depression and severe anxiety.

Health care workers in therapy talk about their fears of being contaminated with coronavirus, about the exposures they’ve had, their fears of bringing the virus home to family, and about the anger – sometimes rage – that their employers are not doing more to protect them.

Few people these past weeks are looking for insight into their patterns of behavior and emotion. Most of life has come to be about survival and not about personal striving. Students who are driven to excel are disappointed to have their scholastic worlds have switched to pass/fail. And for those struggling with milder forms of depression and anxiety, both the patients and I have all been a bit perplexed by losing the usual measures of what feelings are normal in a tragic world and we no longer use socializing as the hallmark that heralds a return to normalcy after a period of withdrawal.

In some aspects, it is not all been bad. I’ve enjoyed watching my neighbors walk by with their dogs through the window behind my computer screen and I’ve felt part of the daily evolution as the cherry tree outside that same window turns from dead brown wood to vibrant pink blossoms. I like the flexibility of my schedule and the sensation I always carry of being rushed has quelled. I take more walks and spend more time with the family members who are held captive with me. The dog, who no longer is left alone for hours each day, is certainly a winner.

Some of my colleagues tell me they are overwhelmed – patients they have not seen for years have returned, people are asking for more frequent sessions, and they are suddenly trying to work at home while homeschooling children. I have had only a few of those requests for crisis care, while new referrals are much quieter than normal. Some of my patients have even said that they simply aren’t comfortable meeting this way and they will see me at the other end of the pandemic. A few people I would have expected to hear from I have not, and I fear that those who have lost their jobs may avoiding the cost of treatment – this group I will reach out to in the coming weeks. A little extra time, however, has given me the opportunity to join the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Mental Health team. And my first attempt at teaching a resident seminar by Zoom has gone well.

For some in the medical field, this has been a horrible and traumatic time; they are worked to exhaustion, and surrounded by distress, death, and personal fear with every shift. For others, life has come to a standstill as the elective procedures that fill their days have virtually stopped. For outpatient psychiatry, it’s been a bit of an in-between, we may feel an odd mix of relevant and useless all at the same time, as our services are appreciated by our patients, but as actual soldiers caring for the ill COVID patients, we are leaving that to our colleagues in the EDs, COVID units, and ICUs. As a physician who has not treated a patient in an ICU for decades, I wish I had something more concrete to contribute to the effort, and at the same time, I’m relieved that I don’t.

And what about the patients? How are they doing with remote psychiatry? Some are clearly flustered or frustrated by the technology issues. Other times sessions go smoothly, and the fact that we are talking through screens gets forgotten. Some like the convenience of not having to drive a far distance and no one misses my crowded parking lot.

Kristen, another doctor’s patient in Illinois, commented: “I appreciate the continuity in care, especially if the alternative is delaying appointments. I think that’s most important. The interaction helps manage added anxiety from isolating as well. I don’t think it diminishes the care I receive; it makes me feel that my doctor is still accessible. One other point, since I have had both telemedicine and in-person appointments with my current psychiatrist, is that during in-person meetings, he is usually on his computer and rarely looks at me or makes eye contact. In virtual meetings, I feel he is much more engaged with me.”

In normal times, I spend a good deal of time encouraging patients to work on building their relationships and community – these connections lead people to healthy and fulfilling lives – and now we talk about how to best be socially distant. We see each other as vectors of disease and to greet a friend with a handshake, much less a hug, would be unthinkable. Will our collective psyches ever recover? For those of us who will survive, that remains to be seen. In the meantime, perhaps we are all being forced to be more flexible and innovative.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

It seems that some glitches would be inevitable. With a sudden shift to videoconferencing in private psychiatric practices, there were bound to be issues with both technology and privacy. One friend told me of such a glitch on the very first day she started telemental health: She was meeting with a patient who was sitting at her kitchen table. Unbeknownst to the patient, her husband walked into the kitchen behind her, fully naked, to get something from the refrigerator. “There was a full moon shot!” my friend said, initially quite shocked, and then eventually amused. As we all cope with a national tragedy and the total upheaval to our personal and professional lives, the stories just keep coming.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

I left work on Friday, March 13, with plans to return on the following Monday to see patients. I had no idea that, by Sunday evening, I would be persuaded that for the safety of all I would need to shut down my real-life psychiatric practice and switch to a videoconferencing venue. I, along with many psychiatrists in Maryland, made this decision after Amy Huberman, MD, posted the following on the Maryland Psychiatric Society (MPS) listserv on Sunday, March 15:

“I want to make a case for starting video sessions with all your patients NOW. There is increasing evidence that the spread of coronavirus is driven primarily by asymptomatic or mildly ill people infected with the virus. Because of this, it’s not good enough to tell your patients not to come in if they have symptoms, or for you not to come into work if you have no symptoms. Even after I sent out a letter two weeks ago warning people not to come in if they had symptoms or had potentially come in contact with someone with COVID-19, several patients with coughs still came to my office, as well as several people who had just been on trips to New York City.

If we want to help slow the spread of this illness so that our health system has a better chance of being able to offer ventilators to the people who need them, we must limit all contacts as much as possible – even of asymptomatic people, given the emerging data.

I am planning to send out a message to all my patients today that they should do the same. Without the president or the media giving clear advice to people about what to do, it’s our job as physicians to do it.”

By that night, I had set up a home office with a blank wall behind me, windows in front of me, and books propping my computer at a height that would not have my patients looking up my nose. For the first time in over 20 years, I dusted my son’s Little League trophies, moved them and a 40,000 baseball card collection against the wall, carried a desk, chair, rug, houseplant, and a small Buddha into a room in which I would have some privacy, and my telepsychiatry practice found a home.

After some research, I registered for a free site called Doxy.me because it was HIPAA compliant and did not require patients to download an application; anyone with a camera on any Internet-enabled phone, computer, or tablet, could click on a link and enter my virtual waiting room. I soon discovered that images on the Doxy.me site are sometimes grainy and sometimes freeze up; in some sessions, we ended up switching to FaceTime, and as government mandates for HIPAA compliance relaxed, I offered to meet on any site that my patients might be comfortable with: if not Doxy.me (which remains my starting place for most sessions), Facetime, Skype, Zoom, or Whatsapp. I have not offered Bluejeans, Google Hangouts, or WebEx, and no one has requested those applications. I keep the phone next to the computer, and some sessions include a few minutes of tech support as I help patients (or they help me) navigate the various sites. In a few sessions, we could not get the audio to work and we used video on one venue while we talked on the phone. I haven’t figured out if the variations in the quality of the connection has to do with my Comcast connection, the fact that these websites are overloaded with users, or that my household now consists of three people, two large monitors, three laptops, two tablets, three cell phone lines (not to mention one dog and a transplanted cat), all going at the same time. The pets do not require any bandwidth, but all the people are talking to screens throughout the workday.

As my colleagues embarked on the same journey, the listserv questions and comments came quickly. What were the best platforms? Was it a good thing or a bad thing to suddenly be in people’s homes? Some felt the extraneous background to be helpful, others found it distracting and intrusive.

How do these sessions get coded for the purpose of billing? There was a tremendous amount of confusion over that, with the initial verdict being that Medicare wanted the place of service changed to “02” and that private insurers want one of two modifiers, and it was anyone’s guess which company wanted which modifier. Then there was the concern that Medicare was paying 25% less, until the MPS staff clarified that full fees would be paid, but the place of service should be filled in as “11” – not “02” – as with regular office visits, and the modifier “95” should be added on the Health Care Finance Administration claim form. We were left to wait and see what gets reimbursed and for what fees.

Could new patients be seen by videoconferencing? Could patients from other states be seen this way if the psychiatrist was not licensed in the state where the patient was calling from? One psychiatrist reported he had a patient in an adjacent state drive over the border into Maryland, but the patient brought her mother and the evaluation included unwanted input from the mom as the session consisted of the patient and her mother yelling at both each other in the car and at the psychiatrist on the screen!

Psychiatrists on the listserv began to comment that treatment sessions were intense and exhausting. I feel the literal face-to-face contact of another person’s head just inches from my own, with full eye contact, often gets to be a lot. No one asks why I’ve moved a trinket (ah, there are no trinkets) or gazes off around the room. I sometimes sit for long periods of time as I don’t even stand to see the patients to the door. Other patients move about or bounce their devices on their laps, and my stomach starts to feel queasy until I ask to have the device adjusted. In some sessions, I find I’m talking to partial heads, or that computer icons cover the patient’s mouth.

Being in people’s lives via screen has been interesting. Unlike my colleague, I have not had any streaking spouses, but I’ve greeted a few family members – often those serving as technical support – and I’ve toured part of a farm, met dogs, guinea pigs, and even a goat. I’ve made brief daily “visits” to a frightened patient in isolation on a COVID hospital unit and had the joy of celebrating the discharge to home. It’s odd to be in a bedroom with a patient, even virtually, and it is interesting to note where they choose to hold their sessions; I’ve had several patients hold sessions from their cars. Seeing my own image in the corner of the screen is also a bit distracting, and in one session, as I saw my own reaction, my patient said, “I knew you were going to make that face!”

The pandemic has usurped most of the activities of all of our lives, and without social interactions, travel, and work in the usual way, life does not hold its usual richness. Many patients have less to say fewer interpersonal strains, and I find myself asking more questions, working harder to fill sessions that used to fill themselves. In a few cases, I have ended the session after half the time as the patient insisted there was nothing to talk about. Many talk about the medical problems they can’t be seen for, what they are doing to keep safe (or not), how they are washing down their groceries, and who they are meeting with by Zoom. Of those who were terribly anxious before, some feel oddly calmer – the world has ramped up to meet their level of anxiety and they feel vindicated. No one thinks they are odd for worrying about germs on door knobs or elevator buttons. What were once neurotic fears are now our real-life reality. Others have been triggered by a paralyzing fear, often with panic attacks, and these sessions are certainly challenging as I figure out which medications will best help, while responding to requests for reassurance. And there is the troublesome aspect of trying to care for others who are fearful while living with the reality that these fears are not extraneous to our own lives: We, too, are scared for ourselves and our families.

For some people, stay-at-home mandates have been easier than for others. People who are naturally introverted, or those with social anxiety, have told me they find this time at home to be a relief. They no longer feel pressured to go out; there is permission to be alone, to read, or watch Netflix. No one is pressuring them to go to parties or look for a Tinder date. For others, the isolation and loneliness have been devastating, causing a range of emotions from being “stir crazy,” to triggering episodes of major depression and severe anxiety.

Health care workers in therapy talk about their fears of being contaminated with coronavirus, about the exposures they’ve had, their fears of bringing the virus home to family, and about the anger – sometimes rage – that their employers are not doing more to protect them.

Few people these past weeks are looking for insight into their patterns of behavior and emotion. Most of life has come to be about survival and not about personal striving. Students who are driven to excel are disappointed to have their scholastic worlds have switched to pass/fail. And for those struggling with milder forms of depression and anxiety, both the patients and I have all been a bit perplexed by losing the usual measures of what feelings are normal in a tragic world and we no longer use socializing as the hallmark that heralds a return to normalcy after a period of withdrawal.

In some aspects, it is not all been bad. I’ve enjoyed watching my neighbors walk by with their dogs through the window behind my computer screen and I’ve felt part of the daily evolution as the cherry tree outside that same window turns from dead brown wood to vibrant pink blossoms. I like the flexibility of my schedule and the sensation I always carry of being rushed has quelled. I take more walks and spend more time with the family members who are held captive with me. The dog, who no longer is left alone for hours each day, is certainly a winner.

Some of my colleagues tell me they are overwhelmed – patients they have not seen for years have returned, people are asking for more frequent sessions, and they are suddenly trying to work at home while homeschooling children. I have had only a few of those requests for crisis care, while new referrals are much quieter than normal. Some of my patients have even said that they simply aren’t comfortable meeting this way and they will see me at the other end of the pandemic. A few people I would have expected to hear from I have not, and I fear that those who have lost their jobs may avoiding the cost of treatment – this group I will reach out to in the coming weeks. A little extra time, however, has given me the opportunity to join the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Mental Health team. And my first attempt at teaching a resident seminar by Zoom has gone well.

For some in the medical field, this has been a horrible and traumatic time; they are worked to exhaustion, and surrounded by distress, death, and personal fear with every shift. For others, life has come to a standstill as the elective procedures that fill their days have virtually stopped. For outpatient psychiatry, it’s been a bit of an in-between, we may feel an odd mix of relevant and useless all at the same time, as our services are appreciated by our patients, but as actual soldiers caring for the ill COVID patients, we are leaving that to our colleagues in the EDs, COVID units, and ICUs. As a physician who has not treated a patient in an ICU for decades, I wish I had something more concrete to contribute to the effort, and at the same time, I’m relieved that I don’t.

And what about the patients? How are they doing with remote psychiatry? Some are clearly flustered or frustrated by the technology issues. Other times sessions go smoothly, and the fact that we are talking through screens gets forgotten. Some like the convenience of not having to drive a far distance and no one misses my crowded parking lot.

Kristen, another doctor’s patient in Illinois, commented: “I appreciate the continuity in care, especially if the alternative is delaying appointments. I think that’s most important. The interaction helps manage added anxiety from isolating as well. I don’t think it diminishes the care I receive; it makes me feel that my doctor is still accessible. One other point, since I have had both telemedicine and in-person appointments with my current psychiatrist, is that during in-person meetings, he is usually on his computer and rarely looks at me or makes eye contact. In virtual meetings, I feel he is much more engaged with me.”

In normal times, I spend a good deal of time encouraging patients to work on building their relationships and community – these connections lead people to healthy and fulfilling lives – and now we talk about how to best be socially distant. We see each other as vectors of disease and to greet a friend with a handshake, much less a hug, would be unthinkable. Will our collective psyches ever recover? For those of us who will survive, that remains to be seen. In the meantime, perhaps we are all being forced to be more flexible and innovative.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.

The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.

In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.

To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
 

TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings

In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.

The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.

The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
 

Results are ‘reassuring’

At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.

“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.

“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”

Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.

The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).

SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.

Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.

The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.

In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.

To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
 

TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings

In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.

The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.

The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
 

Results are ‘reassuring’

At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.

“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.

“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”

Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.

The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).

SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.

Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.

The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.

In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.

To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
 

TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings

In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.

The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.

The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
 

Results are ‘reassuring’

At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.

“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.

“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”

Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.

The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).

SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.