The COVID-19 pandemic figured prominently in the final debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden when they met on stage for a 90-minute debate in Nashville, Tennessee, Thursday evening.

The adequacy of the COVID-19 response to date, the likely timeline for vaccine availability, and how to reopen businesses while keeping Americans safe were among the points on which the two candidates disagreed. The two candidates also sparred over the value of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the future of healthcare in the United States.

Trump and Biden also differed on whether or not the country is facing a “dark winter” because of the pandemic.

Moderator Kristen Welker, NBC News White House correspondent, asked Trump to comment on the fact that 40,000 people are in the hospital on debate night with COVID-19 and that 16,000 have died since the last presidential debate.

Trump said, “2.2 million people modeled out were expected to die.” He said COVID-19 is a worldwide disease that does not only affect the United States.

“The mortality rate is down 85%, and the excess mortality is also down,” he added. He pointed out that previous spikes in Florida, Texas, and Arizona are now gone, and “spikes and surges in other places will soon be gone.

“It will go away, we are rounding the corner,” Trump said. “From personal experience, I was in the hospital, I had it, and they gave me a therapeutic, some would call it a cure...and now they say I’m immune. Whether it’s for a month or lifetime, nobody has been able to say that, but I’m immune.”

Biden countered by saying that “220,000 people are dead. If you hear nothing else I say tonight, hear this: Anyone who’s responsible for that many deaths should not remain president of the United States of America.”

Biden said there are a thousand deaths a day now and that there are over 70K new cases per day. “The expectation is we will have another 200,000 people down before the end of this year. If we just all wore these masks, we could save 100,000.”

“The New England Journal of Medicine said the way the president has handled this is absolutely tragic,” Biden added.

Vaccine timeline

Welker asked Trump if he could guarantee that there will be a COVID-19 vaccine within weeks.

“I can’t guarantee that, but it will be by end of the year. It will be distributed very quickly,” Trump said. He added that three leading vaccine developers, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Pfizer, “are doing very well.”

“We’re about to go into a dark winter and he has no clear plan,” Biden said. “There is no prospect there will be a vaccine for most Americans by middle of next year.”

“It will not be a dark winter,” Trump responded.

Reopening the economy

Trump and Biden disagreed on how aggressively the economy should be reopened in light of the pandemic.

“I want to open the schools. We can’t keep this country closed,” Trump said. “This is a massive country with a massive economy.” He pointed out that rates of depression and suicide have risen because of the economic shutdown. “The cure cannot be worse than the problem.

“His Democrat governors...shut down so tight, and they’re dying,” the president added, gesturing toward Biden. “We are not going to shut down. We are going to open the schools.” As an example of the resiliency of young people, he mentioned that his son Barron tested positive for COVID-19 and recovered.

“I would shut down the virus, not the country,” Biden said. “It’s his ineptitude that caused so many schools and businesses to close in large part. Instead of being in a sand trap playing golf, he should have been negotiating with Nancy Pelosi.”

“He says we’re learning to live with it,” the former vice president said, but instead, “people are learning to die with it.”

Biden added that reopening the economy and minimizing transmission of COVID-19 are not mutually exclusive. “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Divergence over the ACA

The fate of the ACA also garnered considerable attention. The discussion underlined a vast difference of opinion between the two candidates on the US healthcare system.

The moderator asked Trump what he would do for the 20 million Americans who get their healthcare through the ACA if it’s taken away.

“Through the legislature, I terminated the individual mandate, the worst part of Obamacare,” Trump said. “And now it’s in court because Obamacare is no good.

“Preexisting conditions will stay,” Trump added.

“I want to terminate Obamacare, and I want to come up with a beautiful healthcare [plan],” Trump added, turning the discussion toward private health insurance. “One thing that is very important is we have 180 million out there who have great private healthcare. Joe Biden will terminate all of their healthcare.”

Trump described Biden’s plan as “socialized medicine.” He also emphasized that protections for people with preexisting conditions “will stay.”

The Trump administration is supporting a lawsuit to overturn the ACA. The suit was filed by 18 Republican-led states. Arguments before the US Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the ACA are scheduled for November 10.

The moderator asked what Biden plans to do if the ACA is struck down. “I will pass Obamacare with a public option ― that will be ‘Bidencare.’ “ He said his plan will reduce premiums and drug prices. “I support private insurance. No one lost their private insurance under Obamacare.

“There is no way he can protect preexisting conditions,” Biden said. He added that 10 million people have already lost their private healthcare through unemployment during the pandemic.

Muting the mic

Following what many described as a chaotic first debate at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio on September 29, the Commission on Presidential Debate opted to allow the muting of the microphone during the first 2 minutes of remarks made by each candidate during each debate segment.

The muting of the microphones appeared to prevent crosstalk during the beginning of each segment of the debate. The candidates did manage to talk over and interrupt each other, as well as the moderator, during portions of the debate.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic figured prominently in the final debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden when they met on stage for a 90-minute debate in Nashville, Tennessee, Thursday evening.

The adequacy of the COVID-19 response to date, the likely timeline for vaccine availability, and how to reopen businesses while keeping Americans safe were among the points on which the two candidates disagreed. The two candidates also sparred over the value of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the future of healthcare in the United States.

Trump and Biden also differed on whether or not the country is facing a “dark winter” because of the pandemic.

Moderator Kristen Welker, NBC News White House correspondent, asked Trump to comment on the fact that 40,000 people are in the hospital on debate night with COVID-19 and that 16,000 have died since the last presidential debate.

Trump said, “2.2 million people modeled out were expected to die.” He said COVID-19 is a worldwide disease that does not only affect the United States.

“The mortality rate is down 85%, and the excess mortality is also down,” he added. He pointed out that previous spikes in Florida, Texas, and Arizona are now gone, and “spikes and surges in other places will soon be gone.

“It will go away, we are rounding the corner,” Trump said. “From personal experience, I was in the hospital, I had it, and they gave me a therapeutic, some would call it a cure...and now they say I’m immune. Whether it’s for a month or lifetime, nobody has been able to say that, but I’m immune.”

Biden countered by saying that “220,000 people are dead. If you hear nothing else I say tonight, hear this: Anyone who’s responsible for that many deaths should not remain president of the United States of America.”

Biden said there are a thousand deaths a day now and that there are over 70K new cases per day. “The expectation is we will have another 200,000 people down before the end of this year. If we just all wore these masks, we could save 100,000.”

“The New England Journal of Medicine said the way the president has handled this is absolutely tragic,” Biden added.

Vaccine timeline

Welker asked Trump if he could guarantee that there will be a COVID-19 vaccine within weeks.

“I can’t guarantee that, but it will be by end of the year. It will be distributed very quickly,” Trump said. He added that three leading vaccine developers, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Pfizer, “are doing very well.”

“We’re about to go into a dark winter and he has no clear plan,” Biden said. “There is no prospect there will be a vaccine for most Americans by middle of next year.”

“It will not be a dark winter,” Trump responded.

Reopening the economy

Trump and Biden disagreed on how aggressively the economy should be reopened in light of the pandemic.

“I want to open the schools. We can’t keep this country closed,” Trump said. “This is a massive country with a massive economy.” He pointed out that rates of depression and suicide have risen because of the economic shutdown. “The cure cannot be worse than the problem.

“His Democrat governors...shut down so tight, and they’re dying,” the president added, gesturing toward Biden. “We are not going to shut down. We are going to open the schools.” As an example of the resiliency of young people, he mentioned that his son Barron tested positive for COVID-19 and recovered.

“I would shut down the virus, not the country,” Biden said. “It’s his ineptitude that caused so many schools and businesses to close in large part. Instead of being in a sand trap playing golf, he should have been negotiating with Nancy Pelosi.”

“He says we’re learning to live with it,” the former vice president said, but instead, “people are learning to die with it.”

Biden added that reopening the economy and minimizing transmission of COVID-19 are not mutually exclusive. “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Divergence over the ACA

The fate of the ACA also garnered considerable attention. The discussion underlined a vast difference of opinion between the two candidates on the US healthcare system.

The moderator asked Trump what he would do for the 20 million Americans who get their healthcare through the ACA if it’s taken away.

“Through the legislature, I terminated the individual mandate, the worst part of Obamacare,” Trump said. “And now it’s in court because Obamacare is no good.

“Preexisting conditions will stay,” Trump added.

“I want to terminate Obamacare, and I want to come up with a beautiful healthcare [plan],” Trump added, turning the discussion toward private health insurance. “One thing that is very important is we have 180 million out there who have great private healthcare. Joe Biden will terminate all of their healthcare.”

Trump described Biden’s plan as “socialized medicine.” He also emphasized that protections for people with preexisting conditions “will stay.”

The Trump administration is supporting a lawsuit to overturn the ACA. The suit was filed by 18 Republican-led states. Arguments before the US Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the ACA are scheduled for November 10.

The moderator asked what Biden plans to do if the ACA is struck down. “I will pass Obamacare with a public option ― that will be ‘Bidencare.’ “ He said his plan will reduce premiums and drug prices. “I support private insurance. No one lost their private insurance under Obamacare.

“There is no way he can protect preexisting conditions,” Biden said. He added that 10 million people have already lost their private healthcare through unemployment during the pandemic.

Muting the mic

Following what many described as a chaotic first debate at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio on September 29, the Commission on Presidential Debate opted to allow the muting of the microphone during the first 2 minutes of remarks made by each candidate during each debate segment.

The muting of the microphones appeared to prevent crosstalk during the beginning of each segment of the debate. The candidates did manage to talk over and interrupt each other, as well as the moderator, during portions of the debate.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic figured prominently in the final debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden when they met on stage for a 90-minute debate in Nashville, Tennessee, Thursday evening.

The adequacy of the COVID-19 response to date, the likely timeline for vaccine availability, and how to reopen businesses while keeping Americans safe were among the points on which the two candidates disagreed. The two candidates also sparred over the value of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the future of healthcare in the United States.

Trump and Biden also differed on whether or not the country is facing a “dark winter” because of the pandemic.

Moderator Kristen Welker, NBC News White House correspondent, asked Trump to comment on the fact that 40,000 people are in the hospital on debate night with COVID-19 and that 16,000 have died since the last presidential debate.

Trump said, “2.2 million people modeled out were expected to die.” He said COVID-19 is a worldwide disease that does not only affect the United States.

“The mortality rate is down 85%, and the excess mortality is also down,” he added. He pointed out that previous spikes in Florida, Texas, and Arizona are now gone, and “spikes and surges in other places will soon be gone.

“It will go away, we are rounding the corner,” Trump said. “From personal experience, I was in the hospital, I had it, and they gave me a therapeutic, some would call it a cure...and now they say I’m immune. Whether it’s for a month or lifetime, nobody has been able to say that, but I’m immune.”

Biden countered by saying that “220,000 people are dead. If you hear nothing else I say tonight, hear this: Anyone who’s responsible for that many deaths should not remain president of the United States of America.”

Biden said there are a thousand deaths a day now and that there are over 70K new cases per day. “The expectation is we will have another 200,000 people down before the end of this year. If we just all wore these masks, we could save 100,000.”

“The New England Journal of Medicine said the way the president has handled this is absolutely tragic,” Biden added.

Vaccine timeline

Welker asked Trump if he could guarantee that there will be a COVID-19 vaccine within weeks.

“I can’t guarantee that, but it will be by end of the year. It will be distributed very quickly,” Trump said. He added that three leading vaccine developers, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Pfizer, “are doing very well.”

“We’re about to go into a dark winter and he has no clear plan,” Biden said. “There is no prospect there will be a vaccine for most Americans by middle of next year.”

“It will not be a dark winter,” Trump responded.

Reopening the economy

Trump and Biden disagreed on how aggressively the economy should be reopened in light of the pandemic.

“I want to open the schools. We can’t keep this country closed,” Trump said. “This is a massive country with a massive economy.” He pointed out that rates of depression and suicide have risen because of the economic shutdown. “The cure cannot be worse than the problem.

“His Democrat governors...shut down so tight, and they’re dying,” the president added, gesturing toward Biden. “We are not going to shut down. We are going to open the schools.” As an example of the resiliency of young people, he mentioned that his son Barron tested positive for COVID-19 and recovered.

“I would shut down the virus, not the country,” Biden said. “It’s his ineptitude that caused so many schools and businesses to close in large part. Instead of being in a sand trap playing golf, he should have been negotiating with Nancy Pelosi.”

“He says we’re learning to live with it,” the former vice president said, but instead, “people are learning to die with it.”

Biden added that reopening the economy and minimizing transmission of COVID-19 are not mutually exclusive. “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Divergence over the ACA

The fate of the ACA also garnered considerable attention. The discussion underlined a vast difference of opinion between the two candidates on the US healthcare system.

The moderator asked Trump what he would do for the 20 million Americans who get their healthcare through the ACA if it’s taken away.

“Through the legislature, I terminated the individual mandate, the worst part of Obamacare,” Trump said. “And now it’s in court because Obamacare is no good.

“Preexisting conditions will stay,” Trump added.

“I want to terminate Obamacare, and I want to come up with a beautiful healthcare [plan],” Trump added, turning the discussion toward private health insurance. “One thing that is very important is we have 180 million out there who have great private healthcare. Joe Biden will terminate all of their healthcare.”

Trump described Biden’s plan as “socialized medicine.” He also emphasized that protections for people with preexisting conditions “will stay.”

The Trump administration is supporting a lawsuit to overturn the ACA. The suit was filed by 18 Republican-led states. Arguments before the US Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the ACA are scheduled for November 10.

The moderator asked what Biden plans to do if the ACA is struck down. “I will pass Obamacare with a public option ― that will be ‘Bidencare.’ “ He said his plan will reduce premiums and drug prices. “I support private insurance. No one lost their private insurance under Obamacare.

“There is no way he can protect preexisting conditions,” Biden said. He added that 10 million people have already lost their private healthcare through unemployment during the pandemic.

Muting the mic

Following what many described as a chaotic first debate at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio on September 29, the Commission on Presidential Debate opted to allow the muting of the microphone during the first 2 minutes of remarks made by each candidate during each debate segment.

The muting of the microphones appeared to prevent crosstalk during the beginning of each segment of the debate. The candidates did manage to talk over and interrupt each other, as well as the moderator, during portions of the debate.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel urine-based assay improved detection of urothelial carcinoma when compared with conventional urine cytology in a prospective, observational study.

The study authors developed a low-coverage whole-genome sequencing technique, called “Urine Exfoliated Cells Copy Number Aberration Detector” (UroCAD), to detect copy number variants in urine-exfoliated cells.

The team then tested whether UroCAD could detect urothelial carcinomas in a single-blinded trial.

Shuxiong Zeng, MD, PhD, of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues described this work in Clinical Cancer Research.
 

Study details and results

The researchers first tested UroCAD on urine samples from a discovery cohort of 190 patients – 126 with urothelial carcinoma and 64 noncancer controls. In this group, UroCAD detected urothelial carcinoma with a sensitivity of 82.5% and a specificity of 96.9%.

The researchers also analyzed samples from a validation cohort of 95 patients – 56 with urothelial carcinoma and 39 noncancer controls.

In this cohort, UroCAD had significantly higher sensitivity than urine cytology (80.4% and 33.9%, respectively; P < .001) but similar specificity (94.9% and 100%, respectively; P = .49) for the detection of urothelial carcinoma.

Among seven patients with pTa tumors, UroCAD had a sensitivity of 71.4%, while urine cytology had a sensitivity of 0%.

UroCAD’s sensitivity was greater for high-grade than low-grade urothelial carcinomas (86.7% and 60.0%, respectively). The assay was also more sensitive for larger tumors, with sensitivities of 66.7% for tumors measuring 1 cm or less, 72% for tumors between 1 cm and 3 cm, and 95.5% for tumors larger than 3 cm.

“The relatively lower sensitivity of UroCAD for the detection of lower-grade or smaller tumors is not unexpected, as these tumors are less likely to have abundant chromosomal alterations,” study author Chuan-Liang Xu, MD, PhD, of the Changhai Hospital in Shanghai, explained in a press release. “Ultimately, we believe that our assay could help to reduce the frequency of cystoscopy examination but not to replace it.”

The researchers noted that UroCAD positivity was associated with microscopic epithelial cells in cancer patients, and this suggests that insufficient exfoliative cells “might be the major technique limitation.”
 

Conclusions and next steps

“In summary, UroCAD could be a highly specific, robust, and noninvasive urothelial carcinoma diagnostic method with improved sensitivity and similar specificity as compared with cytology tests,” the researchers concluded.

“Within the next 5 years, we can see UroCAD in a variety of commercial formats available to the global markets, including the USA,” Dr. Xu commented in an interview. “We see UroCAD as a disruptive technology in diagnosing and monitoring patients with urothelial carcinoma.

“In America, given the COVID-19 pandemic, we also envision UroCAD becoming commercially available in the form of a mailed, at-home collection kit for high-risk patients, which may also be purchased off the shelf at commercial pharmacies,” Dr. Xu added. “We hope UroCAD will make a positive clinical impact to the urology field.”

In a follow-up trial (NCT04432909), researchers are evaluating the utility of UroCAD in the surveillance of urothelial carcinoma.

The current research was supported by various funding sources in China. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zeng S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0401.

A novel urine-based assay improved detection of urothelial carcinoma when compared with conventional urine cytology in a prospective, observational study.

The study authors developed a low-coverage whole-genome sequencing technique, called “Urine Exfoliated Cells Copy Number Aberration Detector” (UroCAD), to detect copy number variants in urine-exfoliated cells.

The team then tested whether UroCAD could detect urothelial carcinomas in a single-blinded trial.

Shuxiong Zeng, MD, PhD, of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues described this work in Clinical Cancer Research.
 

Study details and results

The researchers first tested UroCAD on urine samples from a discovery cohort of 190 patients – 126 with urothelial carcinoma and 64 noncancer controls. In this group, UroCAD detected urothelial carcinoma with a sensitivity of 82.5% and a specificity of 96.9%.

The researchers also analyzed samples from a validation cohort of 95 patients – 56 with urothelial carcinoma and 39 noncancer controls.

In this cohort, UroCAD had significantly higher sensitivity than urine cytology (80.4% and 33.9%, respectively; P < .001) but similar specificity (94.9% and 100%, respectively; P = .49) for the detection of urothelial carcinoma.

Among seven patients with pTa tumors, UroCAD had a sensitivity of 71.4%, while urine cytology had a sensitivity of 0%.

UroCAD’s sensitivity was greater for high-grade than low-grade urothelial carcinomas (86.7% and 60.0%, respectively). The assay was also more sensitive for larger tumors, with sensitivities of 66.7% for tumors measuring 1 cm or less, 72% for tumors between 1 cm and 3 cm, and 95.5% for tumors larger than 3 cm.

“The relatively lower sensitivity of UroCAD for the detection of lower-grade or smaller tumors is not unexpected, as these tumors are less likely to have abundant chromosomal alterations,” study author Chuan-Liang Xu, MD, PhD, of the Changhai Hospital in Shanghai, explained in a press release. “Ultimately, we believe that our assay could help to reduce the frequency of cystoscopy examination but not to replace it.”

The researchers noted that UroCAD positivity was associated with microscopic epithelial cells in cancer patients, and this suggests that insufficient exfoliative cells “might be the major technique limitation.”
 

Conclusions and next steps

“In summary, UroCAD could be a highly specific, robust, and noninvasive urothelial carcinoma diagnostic method with improved sensitivity and similar specificity as compared with cytology tests,” the researchers concluded.

“Within the next 5 years, we can see UroCAD in a variety of commercial formats available to the global markets, including the USA,” Dr. Xu commented in an interview. “We see UroCAD as a disruptive technology in diagnosing and monitoring patients with urothelial carcinoma.

“In America, given the COVID-19 pandemic, we also envision UroCAD becoming commercially available in the form of a mailed, at-home collection kit for high-risk patients, which may also be purchased off the shelf at commercial pharmacies,” Dr. Xu added. “We hope UroCAD will make a positive clinical impact to the urology field.”

In a follow-up trial (NCT04432909), researchers are evaluating the utility of UroCAD in the surveillance of urothelial carcinoma.

The current research was supported by various funding sources in China. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zeng S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0401.

A novel urine-based assay improved detection of urothelial carcinoma when compared with conventional urine cytology in a prospective, observational study.

The study authors developed a low-coverage whole-genome sequencing technique, called “Urine Exfoliated Cells Copy Number Aberration Detector” (UroCAD), to detect copy number variants in urine-exfoliated cells.

The team then tested whether UroCAD could detect urothelial carcinomas in a single-blinded trial.

Shuxiong Zeng, MD, PhD, of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues described this work in Clinical Cancer Research.
 

Study details and results

The researchers first tested UroCAD on urine samples from a discovery cohort of 190 patients – 126 with urothelial carcinoma and 64 noncancer controls. In this group, UroCAD detected urothelial carcinoma with a sensitivity of 82.5% and a specificity of 96.9%.

The researchers also analyzed samples from a validation cohort of 95 patients – 56 with urothelial carcinoma and 39 noncancer controls.

In this cohort, UroCAD had significantly higher sensitivity than urine cytology (80.4% and 33.9%, respectively; P < .001) but similar specificity (94.9% and 100%, respectively; P = .49) for the detection of urothelial carcinoma.

Among seven patients with pTa tumors, UroCAD had a sensitivity of 71.4%, while urine cytology had a sensitivity of 0%.

UroCAD’s sensitivity was greater for high-grade than low-grade urothelial carcinomas (86.7% and 60.0%, respectively). The assay was also more sensitive for larger tumors, with sensitivities of 66.7% for tumors measuring 1 cm or less, 72% for tumors between 1 cm and 3 cm, and 95.5% for tumors larger than 3 cm.

“The relatively lower sensitivity of UroCAD for the detection of lower-grade or smaller tumors is not unexpected, as these tumors are less likely to have abundant chromosomal alterations,” study author Chuan-Liang Xu, MD, PhD, of the Changhai Hospital in Shanghai, explained in a press release. “Ultimately, we believe that our assay could help to reduce the frequency of cystoscopy examination but not to replace it.”

The researchers noted that UroCAD positivity was associated with microscopic epithelial cells in cancer patients, and this suggests that insufficient exfoliative cells “might be the major technique limitation.”
 

Conclusions and next steps

“In summary, UroCAD could be a highly specific, robust, and noninvasive urothelial carcinoma diagnostic method with improved sensitivity and similar specificity as compared with cytology tests,” the researchers concluded.

“Within the next 5 years, we can see UroCAD in a variety of commercial formats available to the global markets, including the USA,” Dr. Xu commented in an interview. “We see UroCAD as a disruptive technology in diagnosing and monitoring patients with urothelial carcinoma.

“In America, given the COVID-19 pandemic, we also envision UroCAD becoming commercially available in the form of a mailed, at-home collection kit for high-risk patients, which may also be purchased off the shelf at commercial pharmacies,” Dr. Xu added. “We hope UroCAD will make a positive clinical impact to the urology field.”

In a follow-up trial (NCT04432909), researchers are evaluating the utility of UroCAD in the surveillance of urothelial carcinoma.

The current research was supported by various funding sources in China. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zeng S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0401.

The effort to increase use of sun protection among Black individuals and others with relatively dark skin is likely to require tailoring of strategies to address barriers and alter perceptions, according to a review of racial differences in the approach to photoprotection, presented at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

“Using photoprotection is not second nature to people of color,” said Amy McMichael, MD, chair, department of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. “It is important to understand the complexity of perception in photoprotection patients with skin of color,” she added.

One obstacle is appearance. For instance, some products appear chalky on dark skin.

“Consider cosmesis,” advised Dr. McMichael. As an alternative to oxybenzone and other organic sunscreen filters, she specifically recommended inorganic sunscreens with tint. Currently, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are the only Food and Drug Administration–approved inorganic filters, she noted. The nanoparticle formulations are less than 100 nm in size. Tinted products blocking visible light of different shades have been developed for individuals of all Fitzpatrick skin types.

Many patients with dark skin will need convincing that sun protection offers benefits and does not impose significant risks. In one survey cited by Dr. McMichael, Blacks reported the lowest level of sunscreen use when compared with Whites, Asians, or Latinos. While the increased melanin content in the skin of people of color does provide natural photoprotection, it does not fully eliminate the many adverse consequences of excess sun exposure.

“Photoprotection is essential to minimize acute and chronic effects of exposure to UV light that includes erythema, pigment darkening, photoaging, and photocarcinogenesis,” Dr. McMichael noted.

Among Black people who do employ sun protection, a large proportion do so to reduce the risk or prevent exacerbation of dyschromias such as vitiligo, melasma, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, according to Dr. McMichael. However, there appears to be inadequate use of sunscreens even for these concerns.

According to a study she cited, dermatologists prescribed sunscreens to Black patients in only 1.8% of office visits. Yet, 5% of all dermatologist consultations by Black patients are made to address a dyschromia. After acne, generalized forms of dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, and atopic dermatitis, dyschromias are the fifth most common reason for Blacks to consult a dermatologist.

“We cannot know from the data what the provider was seeing, but we can see that sunscreens are not the first medication that providers are reaching for,” Dr. McMichael said.

There are some concerns about the use of sunscreen that can be dispelled. The risk of vitamin D deficiency is one. Dr. McMichael, citing National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, said there appears to be a low risk in Whites and essentially no risk in Blacks.

The potential for sunscreens to induce frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is another concern, but Dr. McMichael sees several problems with the surveys that have associated sunscreens with FFA, including recall bias, temporal ambiguity regarding sunscreen exposure and FFA onset, and cases of FFA in areas of the world where sunscreen is not used.

For sunscreens and FFA, “there is no direct evidence of causation,” she said. For concerned patients, she does acknowledge that there are data supporting an association, but she explains that this “connection is very loose at best.”

When encouraging sun protection, Dr. McMichael discusses alternatives to sunscreens, including hats and clothing that are photoprotective, wrap-around sunglasses, and sun avoidance. For patients with dyschromias, it makes particular sense to employ multiple sun protection strategies, but Dr. McMichael suggested that everybody, including individuals with skin of color, should be considering how to reduce excess sun exposure. She indicated that messages should to be tailored for the Black population.

“It is important to understand the complexity of the perception in photoprotection in patients with skin of color,” she said. Success with increasing uptake of sunscreens in patients with darker skin might depend on allaying fears and directing patients to agents that are cosmetically acceptable.

Others have delivered the same or related messages in the past. Natasha Buchanan Lunsford, PhD, a researcher in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led a study on perceptions about skin cancer among Blacks and Hispanics.

“Most participants perceived themselves to be at low skin cancer risk due to their darker skin tone,” reported Dr. Lundsford and her coinvestigators, a finding based on data collected from 18 focus groups with Black and Hispanic participants aged 18 through 44 years.

In this study, Hispanics reported sun protection behavior more often than Blacks, but the minority of both groups used sunscreen or other sun avoidance measures routinely. For those who did use sunscreens, skin darkening and photoaging, rather than prevention of skin cancer, was the most common motivation to do so.

One problem is that “while general skin cancer prevention messaging exists, tailored and culturally sensitive messaging is limited,” Dr. Lundsford and coauthors wrote.

Dr. McMichael has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those that make skin care products.

The effort to increase use of sun protection among Black individuals and others with relatively dark skin is likely to require tailoring of strategies to address barriers and alter perceptions, according to a review of racial differences in the approach to photoprotection, presented at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

“Using photoprotection is not second nature to people of color,” said Amy McMichael, MD, chair, department of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. “It is important to understand the complexity of perception in photoprotection patients with skin of color,” she added.

One obstacle is appearance. For instance, some products appear chalky on dark skin.

“Consider cosmesis,” advised Dr. McMichael. As an alternative to oxybenzone and other organic sunscreen filters, she specifically recommended inorganic sunscreens with tint. Currently, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are the only Food and Drug Administration–approved inorganic filters, she noted. The nanoparticle formulations are less than 100 nm in size. Tinted products blocking visible light of different shades have been developed for individuals of all Fitzpatrick skin types.

Many patients with dark skin will need convincing that sun protection offers benefits and does not impose significant risks. In one survey cited by Dr. McMichael, Blacks reported the lowest level of sunscreen use when compared with Whites, Asians, or Latinos. While the increased melanin content in the skin of people of color does provide natural photoprotection, it does not fully eliminate the many adverse consequences of excess sun exposure.

“Photoprotection is essential to minimize acute and chronic effects of exposure to UV light that includes erythema, pigment darkening, photoaging, and photocarcinogenesis,” Dr. McMichael noted.

Among Black people who do employ sun protection, a large proportion do so to reduce the risk or prevent exacerbation of dyschromias such as vitiligo, melasma, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, according to Dr. McMichael. However, there appears to be inadequate use of sunscreens even for these concerns.

According to a study she cited, dermatologists prescribed sunscreens to Black patients in only 1.8% of office visits. Yet, 5% of all dermatologist consultations by Black patients are made to address a dyschromia. After acne, generalized forms of dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, and atopic dermatitis, dyschromias are the fifth most common reason for Blacks to consult a dermatologist.

“We cannot know from the data what the provider was seeing, but we can see that sunscreens are not the first medication that providers are reaching for,” Dr. McMichael said.

There are some concerns about the use of sunscreen that can be dispelled. The risk of vitamin D deficiency is one. Dr. McMichael, citing National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, said there appears to be a low risk in Whites and essentially no risk in Blacks.

The potential for sunscreens to induce frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is another concern, but Dr. McMichael sees several problems with the surveys that have associated sunscreens with FFA, including recall bias, temporal ambiguity regarding sunscreen exposure and FFA onset, and cases of FFA in areas of the world where sunscreen is not used.

For sunscreens and FFA, “there is no direct evidence of causation,” she said. For concerned patients, she does acknowledge that there are data supporting an association, but she explains that this “connection is very loose at best.”

When encouraging sun protection, Dr. McMichael discusses alternatives to sunscreens, including hats and clothing that are photoprotective, wrap-around sunglasses, and sun avoidance. For patients with dyschromias, it makes particular sense to employ multiple sun protection strategies, but Dr. McMichael suggested that everybody, including individuals with skin of color, should be considering how to reduce excess sun exposure. She indicated that messages should to be tailored for the Black population.

“It is important to understand the complexity of the perception in photoprotection in patients with skin of color,” she said. Success with increasing uptake of sunscreens in patients with darker skin might depend on allaying fears and directing patients to agents that are cosmetically acceptable.

Others have delivered the same or related messages in the past. Natasha Buchanan Lunsford, PhD, a researcher in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led a study on perceptions about skin cancer among Blacks and Hispanics.

“Most participants perceived themselves to be at low skin cancer risk due to their darker skin tone,” reported Dr. Lundsford and her coinvestigators, a finding based on data collected from 18 focus groups with Black and Hispanic participants aged 18 through 44 years.

In this study, Hispanics reported sun protection behavior more often than Blacks, but the minority of both groups used sunscreen or other sun avoidance measures routinely. For those who did use sunscreens, skin darkening and photoaging, rather than prevention of skin cancer, was the most common motivation to do so.

One problem is that “while general skin cancer prevention messaging exists, tailored and culturally sensitive messaging is limited,” Dr. Lundsford and coauthors wrote.

Dr. McMichael has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those that make skin care products.

The effort to increase use of sun protection among Black individuals and others with relatively dark skin is likely to require tailoring of strategies to address barriers and alter perceptions, according to a review of racial differences in the approach to photoprotection, presented at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

“Using photoprotection is not second nature to people of color,” said Amy McMichael, MD, chair, department of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. “It is important to understand the complexity of perception in photoprotection patients with skin of color,” she added.

One obstacle is appearance. For instance, some products appear chalky on dark skin.

“Consider cosmesis,” advised Dr. McMichael. As an alternative to oxybenzone and other organic sunscreen filters, she specifically recommended inorganic sunscreens with tint. Currently, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are the only Food and Drug Administration–approved inorganic filters, she noted. The nanoparticle formulations are less than 100 nm in size. Tinted products blocking visible light of different shades have been developed for individuals of all Fitzpatrick skin types.

Many patients with dark skin will need convincing that sun protection offers benefits and does not impose significant risks. In one survey cited by Dr. McMichael, Blacks reported the lowest level of sunscreen use when compared with Whites, Asians, or Latinos. While the increased melanin content in the skin of people of color does provide natural photoprotection, it does not fully eliminate the many adverse consequences of excess sun exposure.

“Photoprotection is essential to minimize acute and chronic effects of exposure to UV light that includes erythema, pigment darkening, photoaging, and photocarcinogenesis,” Dr. McMichael noted.

Among Black people who do employ sun protection, a large proportion do so to reduce the risk or prevent exacerbation of dyschromias such as vitiligo, melasma, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, according to Dr. McMichael. However, there appears to be inadequate use of sunscreens even for these concerns.

According to a study she cited, dermatologists prescribed sunscreens to Black patients in only 1.8% of office visits. Yet, 5% of all dermatologist consultations by Black patients are made to address a dyschromia. After acne, generalized forms of dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, and atopic dermatitis, dyschromias are the fifth most common reason for Blacks to consult a dermatologist.

“We cannot know from the data what the provider was seeing, but we can see that sunscreens are not the first medication that providers are reaching for,” Dr. McMichael said.

There are some concerns about the use of sunscreen that can be dispelled. The risk of vitamin D deficiency is one. Dr. McMichael, citing National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, said there appears to be a low risk in Whites and essentially no risk in Blacks.

The potential for sunscreens to induce frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is another concern, but Dr. McMichael sees several problems with the surveys that have associated sunscreens with FFA, including recall bias, temporal ambiguity regarding sunscreen exposure and FFA onset, and cases of FFA in areas of the world where sunscreen is not used.

For sunscreens and FFA, “there is no direct evidence of causation,” she said. For concerned patients, she does acknowledge that there are data supporting an association, but she explains that this “connection is very loose at best.”

When encouraging sun protection, Dr. McMichael discusses alternatives to sunscreens, including hats and clothing that are photoprotective, wrap-around sunglasses, and sun avoidance. For patients with dyschromias, it makes particular sense to employ multiple sun protection strategies, but Dr. McMichael suggested that everybody, including individuals with skin of color, should be considering how to reduce excess sun exposure. She indicated that messages should to be tailored for the Black population.

“It is important to understand the complexity of the perception in photoprotection in patients with skin of color,” she said. Success with increasing uptake of sunscreens in patients with darker skin might depend on allaying fears and directing patients to agents that are cosmetically acceptable.

Others have delivered the same or related messages in the past. Natasha Buchanan Lunsford, PhD, a researcher in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led a study on perceptions about skin cancer among Blacks and Hispanics.

“Most participants perceived themselves to be at low skin cancer risk due to their darker skin tone,” reported Dr. Lundsford and her coinvestigators, a finding based on data collected from 18 focus groups with Black and Hispanic participants aged 18 through 44 years.

In this study, Hispanics reported sun protection behavior more often than Blacks, but the minority of both groups used sunscreen or other sun avoidance measures routinely. For those who did use sunscreens, skin darkening and photoaging, rather than prevention of skin cancer, was the most common motivation to do so.

One problem is that “while general skin cancer prevention messaging exists, tailored and culturally sensitive messaging is limited,” Dr. Lundsford and coauthors wrote.

Dr. McMichael has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those that make skin care products.

Many student athletes who test positive for COVID-19 likely can have an uneventful return to their sports after they have rested for 2 weeks in quarantine, doctors suggest.

Canberk Sezer/Getty Images

There are reasons for caution, however, especially when a patient has symptoms that indicate possible cardiac involvement. In these cases, patients should undergo cardiac testing before a physician clears them to return to play, according to guidance from professional associations. Reports of myocarditis in college athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 but were asymptomatic are among the reasons for concern. Myocarditis may increase the risk of sudden death during exercise.

“The thing that you need to keep in mind is that this is not just a respiratory illness,” David T. Bernhardt, MD, professor of pediatrics, orthopedics, and rehabilitation at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. High school and college athletes have had cardiac, neurologic, hematologic, and renal problems that “can complicate their recovery and their return to sport.”

Still, children who test positive for COVID-19 tend to have mild illness and often are asymptomatic. “It is more than likely going to be safe for the majority of the student athletes who are in the elementary and middle school age to return to sport,” said Dr. Bernhardt. Given that 18-year-old college freshmen have had cardiac complications, there may be reason for more caution with high school students.
 

Limited data

The AAP has released interim guidance on returning to sports and recommends that primary care physicians clear all patients with COVID-19 before they resume training. Physicians should screen for cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope.

Those with severe illness should be restricted from exercise and participation for 3-6 months. Primary care physicians, preferably in consultation with pediatric cardiologists, should clear athletes who experience severe illness.

“Most of the recommendations come from the fact that we simply do not know what we do not know with COVID-19,” Susannah Briskin, MD, a coauthor of the interim guidance, said in an interview. “We have to be cautious in returning individuals to play and closely monitor them as we learn more about the disease process and its effect on kids.”

Patients with severe illness could include those who were hospitalized and experienced hypotension or arrhythmias, required intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, had kidney or cardiac failure, or developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), said Dr. Briskin, a specialist in pediatric sports medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“The majority of COVID-19 cases will not present like this in kids. We have no idea how common myocarditis is in kids post infection. We do know that, if anyone has chest pain, shortness of breath, excessive fatigue, syncope [passing out], or arrhythmia [feeling of their heart skipping beats], they should undergo further evaluation for myocarditis,” Dr. Briskin said.

Patients who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms should rest for 14 days after their positive test. After their infectious period has passed, a doctor should assess for any concerning cardiac symptoms. “Anyone with prolonged fever or moderate symptoms should see their pediatrician and have an EKG performed, at a minimum, prior to return to sports,” Dr. Briskin said. “Anyone with an abnormal EKG or concerning signs or symptoms should be referred on to pediatric cardiology for a further assessment.”

Most patients who Dr. Briskin has seen have been asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. “They have done well with a gradual return to physical activity,” she said. “We recommend a gradual return so individuals can be monitored for any signs or symptoms concerning for myocarditis. The far majority of individuals likely have an uneventful return to play.”

Mitigating risk

COVID-19 adds elements of uncertainty and complexity to the usual process of mitigating risk in sports, Dr. Bernhardt noted in his lecture. “You are dealing with an infection that we do not know a lot about,” he said. “And we are trying to mitigate risk not only for the individual who may or may not have underlying health problems, but you are also trying to mitigate risk for anybody else involved with the sport, including athletic trainers and team physicians, coaches, spectators, custodial staff, people working at a snack shack, and all the other people that can be involved in a typical sporting type of atmosphere.”

When patients do return to play after an illness, they should gradually increase the training load to avoid injury. In addition, clinicians should screen for depression and anxiety using tools such as the Four-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) when they see patients. “The pandemic has been quite stressful for everybody, including our high school student athletes,” Dr. Bernhardt said. “Giving everybody a PHQ-4 when they come into clinic right now probably makes sense in terms of the stress levels that all of us are experiencing.”

If a patient screens positive, take additional history and refer for more in-depth mental health evaluation and treatment if warranted. Sharing breathing and relaxation exercises, promoting healthy behaviors, and paying attention to unhealthy strategies also may help, Dr. Bernhardt suggested.

Ultimately, determining when an athlete with COVID-19 can be medically cleared to return to play may be a challenge. There are limited data on epidemiology and clinical presentations that could help identify cardiac injury related to the disease, Dr. Bernhardt said. Guidance from the American College of Cardiology provides a framework for evaluating athletes for return to play, and pediatric cardiologists have discussed how the guidance relates to a pediatric population. Cardiac assessments may include measures of biomarkers such as troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and sedimentation rate, along with electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and cardiac MRI.

Beyond return-to-play decisions, encourage the use of cloth face coverings on the sidelines and away from the playing field, and stress proper quarantining, Dr. Briskin added. Too often, she hears about children not quarantining properly. “Individuals with a known exposure should be quarantined in their house – ideally in a separate room from everyone else. ... When they come out of their room, they should wash their hands well and wear a cloth face covering. They should not be eating with other people.”

Dr. Bernhardt had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Many student athletes who test positive for COVID-19 likely can have an uneventful return to their sports after they have rested for 2 weeks in quarantine, doctors suggest.

Canberk Sezer/Getty Images

There are reasons for caution, however, especially when a patient has symptoms that indicate possible cardiac involvement. In these cases, patients should undergo cardiac testing before a physician clears them to return to play, according to guidance from professional associations. Reports of myocarditis in college athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 but were asymptomatic are among the reasons for concern. Myocarditis may increase the risk of sudden death during exercise.

“The thing that you need to keep in mind is that this is not just a respiratory illness,” David T. Bernhardt, MD, professor of pediatrics, orthopedics, and rehabilitation at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. High school and college athletes have had cardiac, neurologic, hematologic, and renal problems that “can complicate their recovery and their return to sport.”

Still, children who test positive for COVID-19 tend to have mild illness and often are asymptomatic. “It is more than likely going to be safe for the majority of the student athletes who are in the elementary and middle school age to return to sport,” said Dr. Bernhardt. Given that 18-year-old college freshmen have had cardiac complications, there may be reason for more caution with high school students.
 

Limited data

The AAP has released interim guidance on returning to sports and recommends that primary care physicians clear all patients with COVID-19 before they resume training. Physicians should screen for cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope.

Those with severe illness should be restricted from exercise and participation for 3-6 months. Primary care physicians, preferably in consultation with pediatric cardiologists, should clear athletes who experience severe illness.

“Most of the recommendations come from the fact that we simply do not know what we do not know with COVID-19,” Susannah Briskin, MD, a coauthor of the interim guidance, said in an interview. “We have to be cautious in returning individuals to play and closely monitor them as we learn more about the disease process and its effect on kids.”

Patients with severe illness could include those who were hospitalized and experienced hypotension or arrhythmias, required intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, had kidney or cardiac failure, or developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), said Dr. Briskin, a specialist in pediatric sports medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“The majority of COVID-19 cases will not present like this in kids. We have no idea how common myocarditis is in kids post infection. We do know that, if anyone has chest pain, shortness of breath, excessive fatigue, syncope [passing out], or arrhythmia [feeling of their heart skipping beats], they should undergo further evaluation for myocarditis,” Dr. Briskin said.

Patients who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms should rest for 14 days after their positive test. After their infectious period has passed, a doctor should assess for any concerning cardiac symptoms. “Anyone with prolonged fever or moderate symptoms should see their pediatrician and have an EKG performed, at a minimum, prior to return to sports,” Dr. Briskin said. “Anyone with an abnormal EKG or concerning signs or symptoms should be referred on to pediatric cardiology for a further assessment.”

Most patients who Dr. Briskin has seen have been asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. “They have done well with a gradual return to physical activity,” she said. “We recommend a gradual return so individuals can be monitored for any signs or symptoms concerning for myocarditis. The far majority of individuals likely have an uneventful return to play.”

Mitigating risk

COVID-19 adds elements of uncertainty and complexity to the usual process of mitigating risk in sports, Dr. Bernhardt noted in his lecture. “You are dealing with an infection that we do not know a lot about,” he said. “And we are trying to mitigate risk not only for the individual who may or may not have underlying health problems, but you are also trying to mitigate risk for anybody else involved with the sport, including athletic trainers and team physicians, coaches, spectators, custodial staff, people working at a snack shack, and all the other people that can be involved in a typical sporting type of atmosphere.”

When patients do return to play after an illness, they should gradually increase the training load to avoid injury. In addition, clinicians should screen for depression and anxiety using tools such as the Four-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) when they see patients. “The pandemic has been quite stressful for everybody, including our high school student athletes,” Dr. Bernhardt said. “Giving everybody a PHQ-4 when they come into clinic right now probably makes sense in terms of the stress levels that all of us are experiencing.”

If a patient screens positive, take additional history and refer for more in-depth mental health evaluation and treatment if warranted. Sharing breathing and relaxation exercises, promoting healthy behaviors, and paying attention to unhealthy strategies also may help, Dr. Bernhardt suggested.

Ultimately, determining when an athlete with COVID-19 can be medically cleared to return to play may be a challenge. There are limited data on epidemiology and clinical presentations that could help identify cardiac injury related to the disease, Dr. Bernhardt said. Guidance from the American College of Cardiology provides a framework for evaluating athletes for return to play, and pediatric cardiologists have discussed how the guidance relates to a pediatric population. Cardiac assessments may include measures of biomarkers such as troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and sedimentation rate, along with electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and cardiac MRI.

Beyond return-to-play decisions, encourage the use of cloth face coverings on the sidelines and away from the playing field, and stress proper quarantining, Dr. Briskin added. Too often, she hears about children not quarantining properly. “Individuals with a known exposure should be quarantined in their house – ideally in a separate room from everyone else. ... When they come out of their room, they should wash their hands well and wear a cloth face covering. They should not be eating with other people.”

Dr. Bernhardt had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Many student athletes who test positive for COVID-19 likely can have an uneventful return to their sports after they have rested for 2 weeks in quarantine, doctors suggest.

Canberk Sezer/Getty Images

There are reasons for caution, however, especially when a patient has symptoms that indicate possible cardiac involvement. In these cases, patients should undergo cardiac testing before a physician clears them to return to play, according to guidance from professional associations. Reports of myocarditis in college athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 but were asymptomatic are among the reasons for concern. Myocarditis may increase the risk of sudden death during exercise.

“The thing that you need to keep in mind is that this is not just a respiratory illness,” David T. Bernhardt, MD, professor of pediatrics, orthopedics, and rehabilitation at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. High school and college athletes have had cardiac, neurologic, hematologic, and renal problems that “can complicate their recovery and their return to sport.”

Still, children who test positive for COVID-19 tend to have mild illness and often are asymptomatic. “It is more than likely going to be safe for the majority of the student athletes who are in the elementary and middle school age to return to sport,” said Dr. Bernhardt. Given that 18-year-old college freshmen have had cardiac complications, there may be reason for more caution with high school students.
 

Limited data

The AAP has released interim guidance on returning to sports and recommends that primary care physicians clear all patients with COVID-19 before they resume training. Physicians should screen for cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope.

Those with severe illness should be restricted from exercise and participation for 3-6 months. Primary care physicians, preferably in consultation with pediatric cardiologists, should clear athletes who experience severe illness.

“Most of the recommendations come from the fact that we simply do not know what we do not know with COVID-19,” Susannah Briskin, MD, a coauthor of the interim guidance, said in an interview. “We have to be cautious in returning individuals to play and closely monitor them as we learn more about the disease process and its effect on kids.”

Patients with severe illness could include those who were hospitalized and experienced hypotension or arrhythmias, required intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, had kidney or cardiac failure, or developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), said Dr. Briskin, a specialist in pediatric sports medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“The majority of COVID-19 cases will not present like this in kids. We have no idea how common myocarditis is in kids post infection. We do know that, if anyone has chest pain, shortness of breath, excessive fatigue, syncope [passing out], or arrhythmia [feeling of their heart skipping beats], they should undergo further evaluation for myocarditis,” Dr. Briskin said.

Patients who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms should rest for 14 days after their positive test. After their infectious period has passed, a doctor should assess for any concerning cardiac symptoms. “Anyone with prolonged fever or moderate symptoms should see their pediatrician and have an EKG performed, at a minimum, prior to return to sports,” Dr. Briskin said. “Anyone with an abnormal EKG or concerning signs or symptoms should be referred on to pediatric cardiology for a further assessment.”

Most patients who Dr. Briskin has seen have been asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. “They have done well with a gradual return to physical activity,” she said. “We recommend a gradual return so individuals can be monitored for any signs or symptoms concerning for myocarditis. The far majority of individuals likely have an uneventful return to play.”

Mitigating risk

COVID-19 adds elements of uncertainty and complexity to the usual process of mitigating risk in sports, Dr. Bernhardt noted in his lecture. “You are dealing with an infection that we do not know a lot about,” he said. “And we are trying to mitigate risk not only for the individual who may or may not have underlying health problems, but you are also trying to mitigate risk for anybody else involved with the sport, including athletic trainers and team physicians, coaches, spectators, custodial staff, people working at a snack shack, and all the other people that can be involved in a typical sporting type of atmosphere.”

When patients do return to play after an illness, they should gradually increase the training load to avoid injury. In addition, clinicians should screen for depression and anxiety using tools such as the Four-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) when they see patients. “The pandemic has been quite stressful for everybody, including our high school student athletes,” Dr. Bernhardt said. “Giving everybody a PHQ-4 when they come into clinic right now probably makes sense in terms of the stress levels that all of us are experiencing.”

If a patient screens positive, take additional history and refer for more in-depth mental health evaluation and treatment if warranted. Sharing breathing and relaxation exercises, promoting healthy behaviors, and paying attention to unhealthy strategies also may help, Dr. Bernhardt suggested.

Ultimately, determining when an athlete with COVID-19 can be medically cleared to return to play may be a challenge. There are limited data on epidemiology and clinical presentations that could help identify cardiac injury related to the disease, Dr. Bernhardt said. Guidance from the American College of Cardiology provides a framework for evaluating athletes for return to play, and pediatric cardiologists have discussed how the guidance relates to a pediatric population. Cardiac assessments may include measures of biomarkers such as troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and sedimentation rate, along with electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and cardiac MRI.

Beyond return-to-play decisions, encourage the use of cloth face coverings on the sidelines and away from the playing field, and stress proper quarantining, Dr. Briskin added. Too often, she hears about children not quarantining properly. “Individuals with a known exposure should be quarantined in their house – ideally in a separate room from everyone else. ... When they come out of their room, they should wash their hands well and wear a cloth face covering. They should not be eating with other people.”

Dr. Bernhardt had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Q2: Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Episodic hepatic encephalopathy is usually precipitant induced in over 80% of cases and precipitants include dehydration, infections, over diuresis, gastrointestinal bleeding, constipation, and the use of narcotics and sedatives. The key is to identify and treat the precipitant. A diagnostic workup to rule out other disorders that can alter brain function and mimic hepatic encephalopathy should also be performed.  
 
Reference  
Viltstrup H et al. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):715-35. 

Q2: Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Episodic hepatic encephalopathy is usually precipitant induced in over 80% of cases and precipitants include dehydration, infections, over diuresis, gastrointestinal bleeding, constipation, and the use of narcotics and sedatives. The key is to identify and treat the precipitant. A diagnostic workup to rule out other disorders that can alter brain function and mimic hepatic encephalopathy should also be performed.  
 
Reference  
Viltstrup H et al. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):715-35. 

Q2: Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Episodic hepatic encephalopathy is usually precipitant induced in over 80% of cases and precipitants include dehydration, infections, over diuresis, gastrointestinal bleeding, constipation, and the use of narcotics and sedatives. The key is to identify and treat the precipitant. A diagnostic workup to rule out other disorders that can alter brain function and mimic hepatic encephalopathy should also be performed.  
 
Reference  
Viltstrup H et al. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):715-35. 

Q1: Correct answer: B  
 
Rationale  
A serum ceruloplasmin less than 5 mg/L and a 24-hour urine copper excretion greater than 100 mcg/24 hours are both highly suggestive of Wilson's disease, a disorder of copper metabolism caused by a mutation in a P-type ATP-ase that mediates the excretion of copper into the bile. Treatment of Wilson's disease consists of copper chelation therapy. Commonly used therapies include D-penicillamine, trientine, and zinc. Patients on therapy should have 24-hour urine copper determination every 6-12 months. Patients on maintenance trientine or D-penicillamine should have urine copper excretion of 200-500 mcg/24 hours. Patients on zinc therapy should have much lower copper excretion, in the range of 75 mcg/24 hours.  
 
References  
1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: Wilson's disease. J Hepatol. 2012;56:671-85.  
2. Roberts EA, Schilsky ML. Diagnosis and treatment of Wilson disease: An update. Hepatology. 2008;47:2089-111.

Q1: Correct answer: B  
 
Rationale  
A serum ceruloplasmin less than 5 mg/L and a 24-hour urine copper excretion greater than 100 mcg/24 hours are both highly suggestive of Wilson's disease, a disorder of copper metabolism caused by a mutation in a P-type ATP-ase that mediates the excretion of copper into the bile. Treatment of Wilson's disease consists of copper chelation therapy. Commonly used therapies include D-penicillamine, trientine, and zinc. Patients on therapy should have 24-hour urine copper determination every 6-12 months. Patients on maintenance trientine or D-penicillamine should have urine copper excretion of 200-500 mcg/24 hours. Patients on zinc therapy should have much lower copper excretion, in the range of 75 mcg/24 hours.  
 
References  
1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: Wilson's disease. J Hepatol. 2012;56:671-85.  
2. Roberts EA, Schilsky ML. Diagnosis and treatment of Wilson disease: An update. Hepatology. 2008;47:2089-111.

Q1: Correct answer: B  
 
Rationale  
A serum ceruloplasmin less than 5 mg/L and a 24-hour urine copper excretion greater than 100 mcg/24 hours are both highly suggestive of Wilson's disease, a disorder of copper metabolism caused by a mutation in a P-type ATP-ase that mediates the excretion of copper into the bile. Treatment of Wilson's disease consists of copper chelation therapy. Commonly used therapies include D-penicillamine, trientine, and zinc. Patients on therapy should have 24-hour urine copper determination every 6-12 months. Patients on maintenance trientine or D-penicillamine should have urine copper excretion of 200-500 mcg/24 hours. Patients on zinc therapy should have much lower copper excretion, in the range of 75 mcg/24 hours.  
 
References  
1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: Wilson's disease. J Hepatol. 2012;56:671-85.  
2. Roberts EA, Schilsky ML. Diagnosis and treatment of Wilson disease: An update. Hepatology. 2008;47:2089-111.

Background: A previous study reported that a median of 5.6 years of intensive versus standard glucose lowering in veterans with type 2 diabetes resulted in significantly reduced risk of major cardiovascular events after 10 years of combined intervention and observational follow-up. 

Over a period of 15 years of combined intervention and posttrial follow-up, the risks of major cardiovascular events or death were not lower in the intensive-therapy group (hazard ratio for composite outcome, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.06; P = .23; HR for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.18). The risk of major cardiovascular disease outcomes was reduced during the approximately 10-year interval of separation of the Hb A_1c curves (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99), but it did not persist after equalization of Hb A_1c levels (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.90-1.75). Limitations include the observational study design, the study population of mostly older men, and reliance on administrative data for outcomes.  

Bottom line: More than 5 years of intensive glucose lowering, compared with standard therapy, did not show significantly lower risks of cardiovascular events or mortality once the glycated hemoglobin curves equalized during follow-up in years 11-15.

Citation: Reaven PD et al. Intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes – 15-year follow-up. New Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 6;380(23):2215-24.

Dr. Burke is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: A previous study reported that a median of 5.6 years of intensive versus standard glucose lowering in veterans with type 2 diabetes resulted in significantly reduced risk of major cardiovascular events after 10 years of combined intervention and observational follow-up. 

Over a period of 15 years of combined intervention and posttrial follow-up, the risks of major cardiovascular events or death were not lower in the intensive-therapy group (hazard ratio for composite outcome, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.06; P = .23; HR for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.18). The risk of major cardiovascular disease outcomes was reduced during the approximately 10-year interval of separation of the Hb A_1c curves (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99), but it did not persist after equalization of Hb A_1c levels (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.90-1.75). Limitations include the observational study design, the study population of mostly older men, and reliance on administrative data for outcomes.  

Bottom line: More than 5 years of intensive glucose lowering, compared with standard therapy, did not show significantly lower risks of cardiovascular events or mortality once the glycated hemoglobin curves equalized during follow-up in years 11-15.

Citation: Reaven PD et al. Intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes – 15-year follow-up. New Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 6;380(23):2215-24.

Dr. Burke is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: A previous study reported that a median of 5.6 years of intensive versus standard glucose lowering in veterans with type 2 diabetes resulted in significantly reduced risk of major cardiovascular events after 10 years of combined intervention and observational follow-up. 

Over a period of 15 years of combined intervention and posttrial follow-up, the risks of major cardiovascular events or death were not lower in the intensive-therapy group (hazard ratio for composite outcome, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.06; P = .23; HR for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.18). The risk of major cardiovascular disease outcomes was reduced during the approximately 10-year interval of separation of the Hb A_1c curves (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99), but it did not persist after equalization of Hb A_1c levels (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.90-1.75). Limitations include the observational study design, the study population of mostly older men, and reliance on administrative data for outcomes.  

Bottom line: More than 5 years of intensive glucose lowering, compared with standard therapy, did not show significantly lower risks of cardiovascular events or mortality once the glycated hemoglobin curves equalized during follow-up in years 11-15.

Citation: Reaven PD et al. Intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes – 15-year follow-up. New Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 6;380(23):2215-24.

Dr. Burke is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.