Ob.Gyn. News

Peripartum maternal oxygen supplementation does not yield a clinically relevant improvement in umbilical artery gas pH or other neonatal outcomes, reported Nandini Raghuraman, MD, MS, of the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, and her associates.

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies identified between Feb. 18 and April 3, 2020, the investigators sought to determine whether maternal oxygen supplementation during delivery leads to improved measures in umbilical artery (UA) gas and neonatal outcomes. Using data from randomized clinical trials, they compared peripartum oxygen supplementation with room air and examined the link between oxygen delivery during regular labor or planned cesarean delivery (CD) with UA gas measures and other neonatal outcomes.

Altogether, 1,078 patients were randomized to the oxygen group or the room air group. UA pH remained similar between the two groups even after the researchers factored in risk of bias, use of low-flow devices, or FIO₂ below 60%, noted the authors. Oxygen supplementation also appeared to reduce rates of UA pH that were less than 7.2 and increase UA PaO₂ relative to room air during scheduled cesarean deliveries, they added.
 

Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was found

Although marginally lower one-minute Apgar scores were observed in infants whose mothers received oxygen during cesarean delivery, the mean difference between oxygen and room air was less than a point and there were no other statistically significant differences in any secondary outcomes, the authors said. Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was noted across most of the study outcomes.

It is important to note that results pooled from all the studies reviewed indicated an increase in UA PaO₂ but no notable differences in UA pH when oxygen was used. Citing multiple studies included in the review, the authors observed that UA PaO₂ is a “poor estimator of neonatal morbidity” because, when evaluated in cord blood gas, it represents dissolved oxygen and is not an accurate indication of how much oxygen is bound to hemoglobin. For this reason, dissolved oxygen content by itself is not an indication of hypoxia or subpar tissue oxygenation.

“Prolonged tissue hypoxia leads to anaerobic metabolism, resulting in decreased pH, which is why UA pH ultimately serves as a better marker for prediction of neonatal morbidity. An intervention that increases the PaO₂ without concomitantly increasing the pH has limited clinical benefit, particularly because hyperoxemia is associated with production of free radicals and oxidative cell damage in adults and neonates,” they explained.
 

With unproven benefits and potential for risk of harm, prolonged oxygen use should be limited

“A large, adequately powered trial is needed to investigate the effect of maternal oxygen supplementation in response to fetal heart rate tracings on short- and long-term neonatal morbidity,” the authors suggested. For the time being, they cautioned limiting prolonged oxygen use since the benefits are unproven and there is a potential risk of harm.

In a separate interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, FACOG, Emory University, Atlanta, noted, “The use of maternal supplemental oxygen with the intent of improving fetal oxygenation is a common clinical practice. Previous studies on maternal oxygen supplementation during labor have yielded conflicting results; however, there is growing literature suggesting that maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygenation may not provide clinically significant benefit and there may even be potential harm to mother and baby.

“Unique to this meta-analysis is evaluation of maternal oxygen supplementation in the presence or absence of labor, hypothesizing that placental oxygen transfer may be affected by regular uterine contractions. The pooled results suggest that the use of maternal supplemental oxygenation does not result in clinically relevant fetal oxygenation in the presence or absence of labor when compared to room air. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that the use of oxygen in response to nonreassuring fetal tracing was not assessed, the most common clinical indication for maternal oxygen supplementation.

“This study further challenges the practice of maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygen and highlights that we have much to learn about the impact of this practice. More research is needed to assess optimal duration of oxygen supplementation, safety and efficacy of oxygen supplementation, appropriate clinical indications for oxygen supplementation, as well as the long-term neonatal outcomes of in utero hyperoxygenation.“

Dr. Raghuraman reported receiving multiple grants and acknowledged multiple funding sources. Her colleagues and Dr. Krishna had no conflicts of interest to report.

Peripartum maternal oxygen supplementation does not yield a clinically relevant improvement in umbilical artery gas pH or other neonatal outcomes, reported Nandini Raghuraman, MD, MS, of the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, and her associates.

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies identified between Feb. 18 and April 3, 2020, the investigators sought to determine whether maternal oxygen supplementation during delivery leads to improved measures in umbilical artery (UA) gas and neonatal outcomes. Using data from randomized clinical trials, they compared peripartum oxygen supplementation with room air and examined the link between oxygen delivery during regular labor or planned cesarean delivery (CD) with UA gas measures and other neonatal outcomes.

Altogether, 1,078 patients were randomized to the oxygen group or the room air group. UA pH remained similar between the two groups even after the researchers factored in risk of bias, use of low-flow devices, or FIO₂ below 60%, noted the authors. Oxygen supplementation also appeared to reduce rates of UA pH that were less than 7.2 and increase UA PaO₂ relative to room air during scheduled cesarean deliveries, they added.
 

Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was found

Although marginally lower one-minute Apgar scores were observed in infants whose mothers received oxygen during cesarean delivery, the mean difference between oxygen and room air was less than a point and there were no other statistically significant differences in any secondary outcomes, the authors said. Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was noted across most of the study outcomes.

It is important to note that results pooled from all the studies reviewed indicated an increase in UA PaO₂ but no notable differences in UA pH when oxygen was used. Citing multiple studies included in the review, the authors observed that UA PaO₂ is a “poor estimator of neonatal morbidity” because, when evaluated in cord blood gas, it represents dissolved oxygen and is not an accurate indication of how much oxygen is bound to hemoglobin. For this reason, dissolved oxygen content by itself is not an indication of hypoxia or subpar tissue oxygenation.

“Prolonged tissue hypoxia leads to anaerobic metabolism, resulting in decreased pH, which is why UA pH ultimately serves as a better marker for prediction of neonatal morbidity. An intervention that increases the PaO₂ without concomitantly increasing the pH has limited clinical benefit, particularly because hyperoxemia is associated with production of free radicals and oxidative cell damage in adults and neonates,” they explained.
 

With unproven benefits and potential for risk of harm, prolonged oxygen use should be limited

“A large, adequately powered trial is needed to investigate the effect of maternal oxygen supplementation in response to fetal heart rate tracings on short- and long-term neonatal morbidity,” the authors suggested. For the time being, they cautioned limiting prolonged oxygen use since the benefits are unproven and there is a potential risk of harm.

In a separate interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, FACOG, Emory University, Atlanta, noted, “The use of maternal supplemental oxygen with the intent of improving fetal oxygenation is a common clinical practice. Previous studies on maternal oxygen supplementation during labor have yielded conflicting results; however, there is growing literature suggesting that maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygenation may not provide clinically significant benefit and there may even be potential harm to mother and baby.

“Unique to this meta-analysis is evaluation of maternal oxygen supplementation in the presence or absence of labor, hypothesizing that placental oxygen transfer may be affected by regular uterine contractions. The pooled results suggest that the use of maternal supplemental oxygenation does not result in clinically relevant fetal oxygenation in the presence or absence of labor when compared to room air. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that the use of oxygen in response to nonreassuring fetal tracing was not assessed, the most common clinical indication for maternal oxygen supplementation.

“This study further challenges the practice of maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygen and highlights that we have much to learn about the impact of this practice. More research is needed to assess optimal duration of oxygen supplementation, safety and efficacy of oxygen supplementation, appropriate clinical indications for oxygen supplementation, as well as the long-term neonatal outcomes of in utero hyperoxygenation.“

Dr. Raghuraman reported receiving multiple grants and acknowledged multiple funding sources. Her colleagues and Dr. Krishna had no conflicts of interest to report.

Peripartum maternal oxygen supplementation does not yield a clinically relevant improvement in umbilical artery gas pH or other neonatal outcomes, reported Nandini Raghuraman, MD, MS, of the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, and her associates.

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies identified between Feb. 18 and April 3, 2020, the investigators sought to determine whether maternal oxygen supplementation during delivery leads to improved measures in umbilical artery (UA) gas and neonatal outcomes. Using data from randomized clinical trials, they compared peripartum oxygen supplementation with room air and examined the link between oxygen delivery during regular labor or planned cesarean delivery (CD) with UA gas measures and other neonatal outcomes.

Altogether, 1,078 patients were randomized to the oxygen group or the room air group. UA pH remained similar between the two groups even after the researchers factored in risk of bias, use of low-flow devices, or FIO₂ below 60%, noted the authors. Oxygen supplementation also appeared to reduce rates of UA pH that were less than 7.2 and increase UA PaO₂ relative to room air during scheduled cesarean deliveries, they added.
 

Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was found

Although marginally lower one-minute Apgar scores were observed in infants whose mothers received oxygen during cesarean delivery, the mean difference between oxygen and room air was less than a point and there were no other statistically significant differences in any secondary outcomes, the authors said. Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was noted across most of the study outcomes.

It is important to note that results pooled from all the studies reviewed indicated an increase in UA PaO₂ but no notable differences in UA pH when oxygen was used. Citing multiple studies included in the review, the authors observed that UA PaO₂ is a “poor estimator of neonatal morbidity” because, when evaluated in cord blood gas, it represents dissolved oxygen and is not an accurate indication of how much oxygen is bound to hemoglobin. For this reason, dissolved oxygen content by itself is not an indication of hypoxia or subpar tissue oxygenation.

“Prolonged tissue hypoxia leads to anaerobic metabolism, resulting in decreased pH, which is why UA pH ultimately serves as a better marker for prediction of neonatal morbidity. An intervention that increases the PaO₂ without concomitantly increasing the pH has limited clinical benefit, particularly because hyperoxemia is associated with production of free radicals and oxidative cell damage in adults and neonates,” they explained.
 

With unproven benefits and potential for risk of harm, prolonged oxygen use should be limited

“A large, adequately powered trial is needed to investigate the effect of maternal oxygen supplementation in response to fetal heart rate tracings on short- and long-term neonatal morbidity,” the authors suggested. For the time being, they cautioned limiting prolonged oxygen use since the benefits are unproven and there is a potential risk of harm.

In a separate interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, FACOG, Emory University, Atlanta, noted, “The use of maternal supplemental oxygen with the intent of improving fetal oxygenation is a common clinical practice. Previous studies on maternal oxygen supplementation during labor have yielded conflicting results; however, there is growing literature suggesting that maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygenation may not provide clinically significant benefit and there may even be potential harm to mother and baby.

“Unique to this meta-analysis is evaluation of maternal oxygen supplementation in the presence or absence of labor, hypothesizing that placental oxygen transfer may be affected by regular uterine contractions. The pooled results suggest that the use of maternal supplemental oxygenation does not result in clinically relevant fetal oxygenation in the presence or absence of labor when compared to room air. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that the use of oxygen in response to nonreassuring fetal tracing was not assessed, the most common clinical indication for maternal oxygen supplementation.

“This study further challenges the practice of maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygen and highlights that we have much to learn about the impact of this practice. More research is needed to assess optimal duration of oxygen supplementation, safety and efficacy of oxygen supplementation, appropriate clinical indications for oxygen supplementation, as well as the long-term neonatal outcomes of in utero hyperoxygenation.“

Dr. Raghuraman reported receiving multiple grants and acknowledged multiple funding sources. Her colleagues and Dr. Krishna had no conflicts of interest to report.

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.