Ob.Gyn. News

The first protocol for the use of lung ultrasound to quantitatively and reproducibly assess the degree of lung involvement in patients suspected of having COVID-19 infection has been published by a team of Italian experts with experience using the technology on the front line.

Particularly in Spain and Italy — where the pandemic has struck hardest in Europe — hard-pressed clinicians seeking to quickly understand whether patients with seemingly mild disease could be harboring more serious lung involvement have increasingly relied upon lung ultrasound in the emergency room.

Now Libertario Demi, PhD, head of the ultrasound laboratory, University of Trento, Italy, and colleagues have developed a protocol, published online March 30 in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine, to standardize practice.

Their research, which builds on previous work by the team, offers broad agreement with industry-led algorithms and emphasizes the use of wireless, handheld ultrasound devices, ideally consisting of a separate probe and tablet, to make sterilization easy.

Firms such as the Butterfly Network, Phillips, Clarius, GE Healthcare, and Siemens are among numerous companies that produce one or more such devices, including some that are completely integrated.
 

Not Universally Accepted

However, lung ultrasound is not yet universally accepted as a tool for diagnosing pneumonia in the context of COVID-19 and triaging patients.

The National Health Service in England does not even mention lung ultrasound in its radiology decision tool for suspected COVID-19, specifying instead chest X-ray as the first-line diagnostic imaging tool, with CT scanning in equivocal cases.

But Giovanni Volpicelli, MD, University Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga, Turin, Italy, who has previously described his experience to Medscape Medical News, says many patients with COVID-19 in his hospital presented with a negative chest X-ray but were found to have interstitial pneumonia on lung ultrasound.

Moreover, while CT scan remains the gold standard, the risk of nosocomial infection is more easily controlled if patients do not have to be transported to the radiology department but remain in the emergency room and instead undergo lung ultrasound there, he stressed.
 

Experts Share Experience of Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19

In developing and publishing their protocol, Demi, senior author of the article, and other colleagues from the heavily affected cities of Northern Italy, say their aim is “to share our experience and to propose a standardization with respect to the use of lung ultrasound in the management of COVID-19 patients.”

They reviewed an anonymized database of around 60,000 ultrasound images of confirmed COVID-19 cases and reviewers were blinded to patients’ clinical backgrounds.

For image acquisition, the authors recommend scanning 14 areas in each patient for 10 seconds, making the scans intercostal to cover the widest possible surface area.

They advise the use of a single focal point on the pleural line, which they write, optimizes the beam shape for observing the lung surface.

The authors also urge that the mechanical index (MI) be kept low because high MIs sustained for long periods “may result in damaging the lung.”

They also stress that cosmetic filters and modalities such as harmonic imaging, contrast, doppler, and compounding should be avoided, alongside saturation phenomena.
 

What Constitutes Intermediate Disease?

Once the images have been taken, they are scored on a 0-3 scale for each of the 14 areas, with no weighting on any individual area.

A score of 0 is given when the pleural line is continuous and regular, with the presence of A-lines, denoting that the lungs are unaffected.

An area is given a score of 3 when the scan shows dense and largely extended white lung tissue, with or without consolidations, indicating severe disease.

At both ends of this spectrum, there is agreement between the Italian protocol and an algorithm developed by the Butterfly Network.

However, the two differ when it comes to scoring intermediate cases. On the Butterfly algorithm, the suggestion is to look for B-lines, caused by fluid and cellular infiltration into the interstitium, and to weigh that against the need for supplementary oxygen.

The Italian team, in contrast, says a score of 1 is given when the pleural line is indented, with vertical areas of white visible below.

A score of 2 is given when the pleural line is broken, with small to large areas of consolidation and associated areas of white below.

Demi told Medscape Medical News that they did not refer to B-lines in their protocol as their visibility depends entirely on the imaging frequency and the probe used.

“This means that scoring on B-lines, people with different machines would give completely different scores for the same patient.”

He continued: “We prefer to refer to horizontal and vertical artifacts, and provide an analysis of the patterns, which is related to the physics of the interactions between the ultrasound waves and lung surface.”

In response, Mike Stone, MD, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and director of education at Butterfly, said there appears to be wide variation in lung findings that “may or may not correlate with the severity of symptoms.”

He told Medscape Medical News it is “hard to know exactly if someone with pure B-lines will progress to serious illness or if someone with some subpleural consolidations will do well.”
 

A Negative Ultrasound Is the Most Useful

Volpicelli believes that, in any case, any patient with an intermediate pattern will require further diagnosis, such as other imaging modalities and blood exams, and the real role of lung ultrasound is in assessing patients at either end of the spectrum.

“In other words, there are situations where lung ultrasound can be considered definitive,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For instance, if I see a patient with mild signs of the disease, just fever, and I perform lung ultrasound and see nothing, lung ultrasound rules out pneumonia.”

“This patient may have COVID-19 of course, but they do not have pneumonia, and they can be treated at home, awaiting the result of the swab test. And this is useful because you can reduce the burden in the emergency department.”

Volpicelli continued: “On the other hand, there are patients with acute respiratory failure in respiratory distress. If the lung ultrasound is normal, you can rule out COVID-19 and you need to use other diagnostic procedures to understand the problem.”

“This is also very important for us because it’s crucial to be able to remove the patient from the isolation area and perform CT scan, chest radiography, and all the other diagnostic tools that we need.”
 

Are Wireless Machines Needed? Not Necessarily

With regard to the use of wireless technology, the Italian team says that “in the setting of COVID-19, wireless probes and tablets represent the most appropriate ultrasound equipment” because they can “easily be wrapped in single-use plastic covers, reducing the risk of contamination,” and making sterilization easy.

Stone suggests that integrated portable devices, however, are no more likely to cause cross-contamination than separate probes and tablets, as they can fit within a sterile sheath as a single unit.

Volpicelli, for his part, doesn’t like what he sees as undue focus on wireless devices for lung ultrasound in the COVID-19 protocols.

He is concerned that recommending them as the best approach may be sending out the wrong message, which could be very “dangerous” as people may then think they cannot perform this screening with standard ultrasound machines.

For him, the issue of cross contamination with standard lung ultrasound machines is “nonexistent. Cleaning the machine is quite easy and I do it hundreds of times per week.”

He does acknowledge, however, that if the lung ultrasound is performed under certain circumstances, for example when a patient is using a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, “the risk of having the machine contaminated is a little bit higher.”

“In these situations...we have a more intensive cleaning procedure to avoid cross-contamination.”

He stressed: “Not all centers have wireless machines, whereas a normal machine is usually in all hospitals.”

“The advantages of using lung ultrasound [in COVID-19] are too great to be limited by something that is not important in my opinion,” he concluded.

Stone is director of education at the Butterfly Network. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first protocol for the use of lung ultrasound to quantitatively and reproducibly assess the degree of lung involvement in patients suspected of having COVID-19 infection has been published by a team of Italian experts with experience using the technology on the front line.

Particularly in Spain and Italy — where the pandemic has struck hardest in Europe — hard-pressed clinicians seeking to quickly understand whether patients with seemingly mild disease could be harboring more serious lung involvement have increasingly relied upon lung ultrasound in the emergency room.

Now Libertario Demi, PhD, head of the ultrasound laboratory, University of Trento, Italy, and colleagues have developed a protocol, published online March 30 in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine, to standardize practice.

Their research, which builds on previous work by the team, offers broad agreement with industry-led algorithms and emphasizes the use of wireless, handheld ultrasound devices, ideally consisting of a separate probe and tablet, to make sterilization easy.

Firms such as the Butterfly Network, Phillips, Clarius, GE Healthcare, and Siemens are among numerous companies that produce one or more such devices, including some that are completely integrated.
 

Not Universally Accepted

However, lung ultrasound is not yet universally accepted as a tool for diagnosing pneumonia in the context of COVID-19 and triaging patients.

The National Health Service in England does not even mention lung ultrasound in its radiology decision tool for suspected COVID-19, specifying instead chest X-ray as the first-line diagnostic imaging tool, with CT scanning in equivocal cases.

But Giovanni Volpicelli, MD, University Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga, Turin, Italy, who has previously described his experience to Medscape Medical News, says many patients with COVID-19 in his hospital presented with a negative chest X-ray but were found to have interstitial pneumonia on lung ultrasound.

Moreover, while CT scan remains the gold standard, the risk of nosocomial infection is more easily controlled if patients do not have to be transported to the radiology department but remain in the emergency room and instead undergo lung ultrasound there, he stressed.
 

Experts Share Experience of Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19

In developing and publishing their protocol, Demi, senior author of the article, and other colleagues from the heavily affected cities of Northern Italy, say their aim is “to share our experience and to propose a standardization with respect to the use of lung ultrasound in the management of COVID-19 patients.”

They reviewed an anonymized database of around 60,000 ultrasound images of confirmed COVID-19 cases and reviewers were blinded to patients’ clinical backgrounds.

For image acquisition, the authors recommend scanning 14 areas in each patient for 10 seconds, making the scans intercostal to cover the widest possible surface area.

They advise the use of a single focal point on the pleural line, which they write, optimizes the beam shape for observing the lung surface.

The authors also urge that the mechanical index (MI) be kept low because high MIs sustained for long periods “may result in damaging the lung.”

They also stress that cosmetic filters and modalities such as harmonic imaging, contrast, doppler, and compounding should be avoided, alongside saturation phenomena.
 

What Constitutes Intermediate Disease?

Once the images have been taken, they are scored on a 0-3 scale for each of the 14 areas, with no weighting on any individual area.

A score of 0 is given when the pleural line is continuous and regular, with the presence of A-lines, denoting that the lungs are unaffected.

An area is given a score of 3 when the scan shows dense and largely extended white lung tissue, with or without consolidations, indicating severe disease.

At both ends of this spectrum, there is agreement between the Italian protocol and an algorithm developed by the Butterfly Network.

However, the two differ when it comes to scoring intermediate cases. On the Butterfly algorithm, the suggestion is to look for B-lines, caused by fluid and cellular infiltration into the interstitium, and to weigh that against the need for supplementary oxygen.

The Italian team, in contrast, says a score of 1 is given when the pleural line is indented, with vertical areas of white visible below.

A score of 2 is given when the pleural line is broken, with small to large areas of consolidation and associated areas of white below.

Demi told Medscape Medical News that they did not refer to B-lines in their protocol as their visibility depends entirely on the imaging frequency and the probe used.

“This means that scoring on B-lines, people with different machines would give completely different scores for the same patient.”

He continued: “We prefer to refer to horizontal and vertical artifacts, and provide an analysis of the patterns, which is related to the physics of the interactions between the ultrasound waves and lung surface.”

In response, Mike Stone, MD, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and director of education at Butterfly, said there appears to be wide variation in lung findings that “may or may not correlate with the severity of symptoms.”

He told Medscape Medical News it is “hard to know exactly if someone with pure B-lines will progress to serious illness or if someone with some subpleural consolidations will do well.”
 

A Negative Ultrasound Is the Most Useful

Volpicelli believes that, in any case, any patient with an intermediate pattern will require further diagnosis, such as other imaging modalities and blood exams, and the real role of lung ultrasound is in assessing patients at either end of the spectrum.

“In other words, there are situations where lung ultrasound can be considered definitive,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For instance, if I see a patient with mild signs of the disease, just fever, and I perform lung ultrasound and see nothing, lung ultrasound rules out pneumonia.”

“This patient may have COVID-19 of course, but they do not have pneumonia, and they can be treated at home, awaiting the result of the swab test. And this is useful because you can reduce the burden in the emergency department.”

Volpicelli continued: “On the other hand, there are patients with acute respiratory failure in respiratory distress. If the lung ultrasound is normal, you can rule out COVID-19 and you need to use other diagnostic procedures to understand the problem.”

“This is also very important for us because it’s crucial to be able to remove the patient from the isolation area and perform CT scan, chest radiography, and all the other diagnostic tools that we need.”
 

Are Wireless Machines Needed? Not Necessarily

With regard to the use of wireless technology, the Italian team says that “in the setting of COVID-19, wireless probes and tablets represent the most appropriate ultrasound equipment” because they can “easily be wrapped in single-use plastic covers, reducing the risk of contamination,” and making sterilization easy.

Stone suggests that integrated portable devices, however, are no more likely to cause cross-contamination than separate probes and tablets, as they can fit within a sterile sheath as a single unit.

Volpicelli, for his part, doesn’t like what he sees as undue focus on wireless devices for lung ultrasound in the COVID-19 protocols.

He is concerned that recommending them as the best approach may be sending out the wrong message, which could be very “dangerous” as people may then think they cannot perform this screening with standard ultrasound machines.

For him, the issue of cross contamination with standard lung ultrasound machines is “nonexistent. Cleaning the machine is quite easy and I do it hundreds of times per week.”

He does acknowledge, however, that if the lung ultrasound is performed under certain circumstances, for example when a patient is using a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, “the risk of having the machine contaminated is a little bit higher.”

“In these situations...we have a more intensive cleaning procedure to avoid cross-contamination.”

He stressed: “Not all centers have wireless machines, whereas a normal machine is usually in all hospitals.”

“The advantages of using lung ultrasound [in COVID-19] are too great to be limited by something that is not important in my opinion,” he concluded.

Stone is director of education at the Butterfly Network. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first protocol for the use of lung ultrasound to quantitatively and reproducibly assess the degree of lung involvement in patients suspected of having COVID-19 infection has been published by a team of Italian experts with experience using the technology on the front line.

Particularly in Spain and Italy — where the pandemic has struck hardest in Europe — hard-pressed clinicians seeking to quickly understand whether patients with seemingly mild disease could be harboring more serious lung involvement have increasingly relied upon lung ultrasound in the emergency room.

Now Libertario Demi, PhD, head of the ultrasound laboratory, University of Trento, Italy, and colleagues have developed a protocol, published online March 30 in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine, to standardize practice.

Their research, which builds on previous work by the team, offers broad agreement with industry-led algorithms and emphasizes the use of wireless, handheld ultrasound devices, ideally consisting of a separate probe and tablet, to make sterilization easy.

Firms such as the Butterfly Network, Phillips, Clarius, GE Healthcare, and Siemens are among numerous companies that produce one or more such devices, including some that are completely integrated.
 

Not Universally Accepted

However, lung ultrasound is not yet universally accepted as a tool for diagnosing pneumonia in the context of COVID-19 and triaging patients.

The National Health Service in England does not even mention lung ultrasound in its radiology decision tool for suspected COVID-19, specifying instead chest X-ray as the first-line diagnostic imaging tool, with CT scanning in equivocal cases.

But Giovanni Volpicelli, MD, University Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga, Turin, Italy, who has previously described his experience to Medscape Medical News, says many patients with COVID-19 in his hospital presented with a negative chest X-ray but were found to have interstitial pneumonia on lung ultrasound.

Moreover, while CT scan remains the gold standard, the risk of nosocomial infection is more easily controlled if patients do not have to be transported to the radiology department but remain in the emergency room and instead undergo lung ultrasound there, he stressed.
 

Experts Share Experience of Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19

In developing and publishing their protocol, Demi, senior author of the article, and other colleagues from the heavily affected cities of Northern Italy, say their aim is “to share our experience and to propose a standardization with respect to the use of lung ultrasound in the management of COVID-19 patients.”

They reviewed an anonymized database of around 60,000 ultrasound images of confirmed COVID-19 cases and reviewers were blinded to patients’ clinical backgrounds.

For image acquisition, the authors recommend scanning 14 areas in each patient for 10 seconds, making the scans intercostal to cover the widest possible surface area.

They advise the use of a single focal point on the pleural line, which they write, optimizes the beam shape for observing the lung surface.

The authors also urge that the mechanical index (MI) be kept low because high MIs sustained for long periods “may result in damaging the lung.”

They also stress that cosmetic filters and modalities such as harmonic imaging, contrast, doppler, and compounding should be avoided, alongside saturation phenomena.
 

What Constitutes Intermediate Disease?

Once the images have been taken, they are scored on a 0-3 scale for each of the 14 areas, with no weighting on any individual area.

A score of 0 is given when the pleural line is continuous and regular, with the presence of A-lines, denoting that the lungs are unaffected.

An area is given a score of 3 when the scan shows dense and largely extended white lung tissue, with or without consolidations, indicating severe disease.

At both ends of this spectrum, there is agreement between the Italian protocol and an algorithm developed by the Butterfly Network.

However, the two differ when it comes to scoring intermediate cases. On the Butterfly algorithm, the suggestion is to look for B-lines, caused by fluid and cellular infiltration into the interstitium, and to weigh that against the need for supplementary oxygen.

The Italian team, in contrast, says a score of 1 is given when the pleural line is indented, with vertical areas of white visible below.

A score of 2 is given when the pleural line is broken, with small to large areas of consolidation and associated areas of white below.

Demi told Medscape Medical News that they did not refer to B-lines in their protocol as their visibility depends entirely on the imaging frequency and the probe used.

“This means that scoring on B-lines, people with different machines would give completely different scores for the same patient.”

He continued: “We prefer to refer to horizontal and vertical artifacts, and provide an analysis of the patterns, which is related to the physics of the interactions between the ultrasound waves and lung surface.”

In response, Mike Stone, MD, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and director of education at Butterfly, said there appears to be wide variation in lung findings that “may or may not correlate with the severity of symptoms.”

He told Medscape Medical News it is “hard to know exactly if someone with pure B-lines will progress to serious illness or if someone with some subpleural consolidations will do well.”
 

A Negative Ultrasound Is the Most Useful

Volpicelli believes that, in any case, any patient with an intermediate pattern will require further diagnosis, such as other imaging modalities and blood exams, and the real role of lung ultrasound is in assessing patients at either end of the spectrum.

“In other words, there are situations where lung ultrasound can be considered definitive,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For instance, if I see a patient with mild signs of the disease, just fever, and I perform lung ultrasound and see nothing, lung ultrasound rules out pneumonia.”

“This patient may have COVID-19 of course, but they do not have pneumonia, and they can be treated at home, awaiting the result of the swab test. And this is useful because you can reduce the burden in the emergency department.”

Volpicelli continued: “On the other hand, there are patients with acute respiratory failure in respiratory distress. If the lung ultrasound is normal, you can rule out COVID-19 and you need to use other diagnostic procedures to understand the problem.”

“This is also very important for us because it’s crucial to be able to remove the patient from the isolation area and perform CT scan, chest radiography, and all the other diagnostic tools that we need.”
 

Are Wireless Machines Needed? Not Necessarily

With regard to the use of wireless technology, the Italian team says that “in the setting of COVID-19, wireless probes and tablets represent the most appropriate ultrasound equipment” because they can “easily be wrapped in single-use plastic covers, reducing the risk of contamination,” and making sterilization easy.

Stone suggests that integrated portable devices, however, are no more likely to cause cross-contamination than separate probes and tablets, as they can fit within a sterile sheath as a single unit.

Volpicelli, for his part, doesn’t like what he sees as undue focus on wireless devices for lung ultrasound in the COVID-19 protocols.

He is concerned that recommending them as the best approach may be sending out the wrong message, which could be very “dangerous” as people may then think they cannot perform this screening with standard ultrasound machines.

For him, the issue of cross contamination with standard lung ultrasound machines is “nonexistent. Cleaning the machine is quite easy and I do it hundreds of times per week.”

He does acknowledge, however, that if the lung ultrasound is performed under certain circumstances, for example when a patient is using a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, “the risk of having the machine contaminated is a little bit higher.”

“In these situations...we have a more intensive cleaning procedure to avoid cross-contamination.”

He stressed: “Not all centers have wireless machines, whereas a normal machine is usually in all hospitals.”

“The advantages of using lung ultrasound [in COVID-19] are too great to be limited by something that is not important in my opinion,” he concluded.

Stone is director of education at the Butterfly Network. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the public mental health system in the New York City area mounted the largest mental health disaster response in history. I was New York City’s mental health commissioner at the time. We called the initiative Project Liberty and over 3 years obtained $137 million in funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support it.

Through Project Liberty, New York established the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP). And it didn’t take us long to realize that what affected people need following a disaster is not necessarily psychotherapy, as might be expected, but in fact crisis counseling, or helping impacted individuals and their families regain control of their anxieties and effectively respond to an immediate disaster. This proved true not only after 9/11 but also after other recent disasters, including hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The mental health system must now step up again to assuage fears and anxieties—both individual and collective—around the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic.
 

So, what is crisis counseling?

A person’s usual adaptive, problem-solving capabilities are often compromised after a disaster, but they are there, and if accessed, they can help those afflicted with mental symptoms following a crisis to mentally endure. Ensuring safety and promoting return to functioning, as well as being informed about immediately available resources, are the central objectives of crisis counseling, thereby making it a different approach from traditional psychotherapy.

The five key concepts in crisis counseling are:

• It is strength-based, which means its foundation is rooted in the assumption that resilience and competence are innate human qualities.
• Crisis counseling also employs anonymity. Impacted individuals should not be diagnosed or labeled. As a result, there are no resulting medical records.
• The approach is outreach-oriented, in which counselors provide services out in the community rather than in traditional mental health settings. This occurs primarily in homes, community centers, and settings, as well as in disaster shelters.
• It is culturally attuned, whereby all staff appreciate and respect a community’s cultural beliefs, values, and primary language.
• It is aimed at supporting, not replacing, existing community support systems (eg, a crisis counselor supports but does not organize, deliver, or manage community recovery activities).

Crisis counselors are required to be licensed psychologists or have obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher in psychology, human services, or another health-related field. In other words, crisis counseling draws on a broad, though related, group of individuals. Before deployment into a disaster area, an applicant must complete the FEMA Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training, which is offered in the disaster area by the FEMA-funded CCP.

Crisis counselors provide trustworthy and actionable information about the disaster at hand and where to turn for resources and assistance. They assist with emotional support. And they aim to educate individuals, families, and communities about how to be resilient.

Crisis counseling, however, may not suffice for everyone impacted. We know that a person’s severity of response to a crisis is highly associated with the intensity and duration of exposure to the disaster (especially when it is life-threatening) and/or the degree of a person’s serious loss (of a loved one, home, job, health). We also know that previous trauma (eg, from childhood, domestic violence, or forced immigration) also predicts the gravity of the response to a current crisis. Which is why crisis counselors also are taught to identify those experiencing significant and persistent mental health and addiction problems because they need to be assisted, literally, in obtaining professional treatment.

Only in recent years has trauma been a recognized driver of stress, distress, and mental and addictive disorders. Until relatively recently, skill with, and access to, crisis counseling—and trauma-informed care—was rare among New York’s large and talented mental health professional community. Few had been trained in it in graduate school or practiced it because New York had been spared a disaster on par with 9/11. Following the attacks, Project Liberty’s programs served nearly 1.5 million affected individuals of very diverse ages, races, cultural backgrounds, and socioeconomic status. Their levels of “psychological distress,” the term we used and measured, ranged from low to very high.

The coronavirus pandemic now presents us with a tragically similar, catastrophic moment. The human consequences we face—psychologically, economically, and socially—are just beginning. But this time, the need is not just in New York but throughout our country.

We humans are resilient. We can bend the arc of crisis toward the light, to recovering our existing but overwhelmed capabilities. We can achieve this in a variety of ways. We can practice self-care. This isn’t an act of selfishness but is rather like putting on your own oxygen mask before trying to help your friend or loved one do the same. We can stay connected to the people we care about. We can eat well, get sufficient sleep, take a walk.

Identifying and pursuing practical goals is also important, like obtaining food, housing that is safe and reliable, transportation to where you need to go, and drawing upon financial and other resources that are issued in a disaster area. We can practice positive thinking and recall how we’ve mastered our troubles in the past; we can remind ourselves that “this too will pass.” Crises create an unusually opportune time for change and self-discovery. As Churchill said to the British people in the darkest moments of the start of World War II, “Never give up.”

Worthy of its own itemization are spiritual beliefs, faith—that however we think about a higher power (religious or secular), that power is on our side. Faith can comfort and sustain hope, particularly at a time when doubt about ourselves and humanity is triggered by disaster.

Maya Angelou’s words remind us at this moment of disaster: “...let us try to help before we have to offer therapy. That is to say, let’s see if we can’t prevent being ill by trying to offer a love of prevention before illness.”

Dr. Sederer is the former chief medical officer for the New York State Office of Mental Health and an adjunct professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Columbia University School of Public Health. His latest book is The Addiction Solution: Treating Our Dependence on Opioids and Other Drugs.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the public mental health system in the New York City area mounted the largest mental health disaster response in history. I was New York City’s mental health commissioner at the time. We called the initiative Project Liberty and over 3 years obtained $137 million in funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support it.

Through Project Liberty, New York established the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP). And it didn’t take us long to realize that what affected people need following a disaster is not necessarily psychotherapy, as might be expected, but in fact crisis counseling, or helping impacted individuals and their families regain control of their anxieties and effectively respond to an immediate disaster. This proved true not only after 9/11 but also after other recent disasters, including hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The mental health system must now step up again to assuage fears and anxieties—both individual and collective—around the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic.
 

So, what is crisis counseling?

A person’s usual adaptive, problem-solving capabilities are often compromised after a disaster, but they are there, and if accessed, they can help those afflicted with mental symptoms following a crisis to mentally endure. Ensuring safety and promoting return to functioning, as well as being informed about immediately available resources, are the central objectives of crisis counseling, thereby making it a different approach from traditional psychotherapy.

The five key concepts in crisis counseling are:

• It is strength-based, which means its foundation is rooted in the assumption that resilience and competence are innate human qualities.
• Crisis counseling also employs anonymity. Impacted individuals should not be diagnosed or labeled. As a result, there are no resulting medical records.
• The approach is outreach-oriented, in which counselors provide services out in the community rather than in traditional mental health settings. This occurs primarily in homes, community centers, and settings, as well as in disaster shelters.
• It is culturally attuned, whereby all staff appreciate and respect a community’s cultural beliefs, values, and primary language.
• It is aimed at supporting, not replacing, existing community support systems (eg, a crisis counselor supports but does not organize, deliver, or manage community recovery activities).

Crisis counselors are required to be licensed psychologists or have obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher in psychology, human services, or another health-related field. In other words, crisis counseling draws on a broad, though related, group of individuals. Before deployment into a disaster area, an applicant must complete the FEMA Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training, which is offered in the disaster area by the FEMA-funded CCP.

Crisis counselors provide trustworthy and actionable information about the disaster at hand and where to turn for resources and assistance. They assist with emotional support. And they aim to educate individuals, families, and communities about how to be resilient.

Crisis counseling, however, may not suffice for everyone impacted. We know that a person’s severity of response to a crisis is highly associated with the intensity and duration of exposure to the disaster (especially when it is life-threatening) and/or the degree of a person’s serious loss (of a loved one, home, job, health). We also know that previous trauma (eg, from childhood, domestic violence, or forced immigration) also predicts the gravity of the response to a current crisis. Which is why crisis counselors also are taught to identify those experiencing significant and persistent mental health and addiction problems because they need to be assisted, literally, in obtaining professional treatment.

Only in recent years has trauma been a recognized driver of stress, distress, and mental and addictive disorders. Until relatively recently, skill with, and access to, crisis counseling—and trauma-informed care—was rare among New York’s large and talented mental health professional community. Few had been trained in it in graduate school or practiced it because New York had been spared a disaster on par with 9/11. Following the attacks, Project Liberty’s programs served nearly 1.5 million affected individuals of very diverse ages, races, cultural backgrounds, and socioeconomic status. Their levels of “psychological distress,” the term we used and measured, ranged from low to very high.

The coronavirus pandemic now presents us with a tragically similar, catastrophic moment. The human consequences we face—psychologically, economically, and socially—are just beginning. But this time, the need is not just in New York but throughout our country.

We humans are resilient. We can bend the arc of crisis toward the light, to recovering our existing but overwhelmed capabilities. We can achieve this in a variety of ways. We can practice self-care. This isn’t an act of selfishness but is rather like putting on your own oxygen mask before trying to help your friend or loved one do the same. We can stay connected to the people we care about. We can eat well, get sufficient sleep, take a walk.

Identifying and pursuing practical goals is also important, like obtaining food, housing that is safe and reliable, transportation to where you need to go, and drawing upon financial and other resources that are issued in a disaster area. We can practice positive thinking and recall how we’ve mastered our troubles in the past; we can remind ourselves that “this too will pass.” Crises create an unusually opportune time for change and self-discovery. As Churchill said to the British people in the darkest moments of the start of World War II, “Never give up.”

Worthy of its own itemization are spiritual beliefs, faith—that however we think about a higher power (religious or secular), that power is on our side. Faith can comfort and sustain hope, particularly at a time when doubt about ourselves and humanity is triggered by disaster.

Maya Angelou’s words remind us at this moment of disaster: “...let us try to help before we have to offer therapy. That is to say, let’s see if we can’t prevent being ill by trying to offer a love of prevention before illness.”

Dr. Sederer is the former chief medical officer for the New York State Office of Mental Health and an adjunct professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Columbia University School of Public Health. His latest book is The Addiction Solution: Treating Our Dependence on Opioids and Other Drugs.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the public mental health system in the New York City area mounted the largest mental health disaster response in history. I was New York City’s mental health commissioner at the time. We called the initiative Project Liberty and over 3 years obtained $137 million in funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support it.

Through Project Liberty, New York established the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP). And it didn’t take us long to realize that what affected people need following a disaster is not necessarily psychotherapy, as might be expected, but in fact crisis counseling, or helping impacted individuals and their families regain control of their anxieties and effectively respond to an immediate disaster. This proved true not only after 9/11 but also after other recent disasters, including hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The mental health system must now step up again to assuage fears and anxieties—both individual and collective—around the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic.
 

So, what is crisis counseling?

A person’s usual adaptive, problem-solving capabilities are often compromised after a disaster, but they are there, and if accessed, they can help those afflicted with mental symptoms following a crisis to mentally endure. Ensuring safety and promoting return to functioning, as well as being informed about immediately available resources, are the central objectives of crisis counseling, thereby making it a different approach from traditional psychotherapy.

The five key concepts in crisis counseling are:

• It is strength-based, which means its foundation is rooted in the assumption that resilience and competence are innate human qualities.
• Crisis counseling also employs anonymity. Impacted individuals should not be diagnosed or labeled. As a result, there are no resulting medical records.
• The approach is outreach-oriented, in which counselors provide services out in the community rather than in traditional mental health settings. This occurs primarily in homes, community centers, and settings, as well as in disaster shelters.
• It is culturally attuned, whereby all staff appreciate and respect a community’s cultural beliefs, values, and primary language.
• It is aimed at supporting, not replacing, existing community support systems (eg, a crisis counselor supports but does not organize, deliver, or manage community recovery activities).

Crisis counselors are required to be licensed psychologists or have obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher in psychology, human services, or another health-related field. In other words, crisis counseling draws on a broad, though related, group of individuals. Before deployment into a disaster area, an applicant must complete the FEMA Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training, which is offered in the disaster area by the FEMA-funded CCP.

Crisis counselors provide trustworthy and actionable information about the disaster at hand and where to turn for resources and assistance. They assist with emotional support. And they aim to educate individuals, families, and communities about how to be resilient.

Crisis counseling, however, may not suffice for everyone impacted. We know that a person’s severity of response to a crisis is highly associated with the intensity and duration of exposure to the disaster (especially when it is life-threatening) and/or the degree of a person’s serious loss (of a loved one, home, job, health). We also know that previous trauma (eg, from childhood, domestic violence, or forced immigration) also predicts the gravity of the response to a current crisis. Which is why crisis counselors also are taught to identify those experiencing significant and persistent mental health and addiction problems because they need to be assisted, literally, in obtaining professional treatment.

Only in recent years has trauma been a recognized driver of stress, distress, and mental and addictive disorders. Until relatively recently, skill with, and access to, crisis counseling—and trauma-informed care—was rare among New York’s large and talented mental health professional community. Few had been trained in it in graduate school or practiced it because New York had been spared a disaster on par with 9/11. Following the attacks, Project Liberty’s programs served nearly 1.5 million affected individuals of very diverse ages, races, cultural backgrounds, and socioeconomic status. Their levels of “psychological distress,” the term we used and measured, ranged from low to very high.

The coronavirus pandemic now presents us with a tragically similar, catastrophic moment. The human consequences we face—psychologically, economically, and socially—are just beginning. But this time, the need is not just in New York but throughout our country.

We humans are resilient. We can bend the arc of crisis toward the light, to recovering our existing but overwhelmed capabilities. We can achieve this in a variety of ways. We can practice self-care. This isn’t an act of selfishness but is rather like putting on your own oxygen mask before trying to help your friend or loved one do the same. We can stay connected to the people we care about. We can eat well, get sufficient sleep, take a walk.

Identifying and pursuing practical goals is also important, like obtaining food, housing that is safe and reliable, transportation to where you need to go, and drawing upon financial and other resources that are issued in a disaster area. We can practice positive thinking and recall how we’ve mastered our troubles in the past; we can remind ourselves that “this too will pass.” Crises create an unusually opportune time for change and self-discovery. As Churchill said to the British people in the darkest moments of the start of World War II, “Never give up.”

Worthy of its own itemization are spiritual beliefs, faith—that however we think about a higher power (religious or secular), that power is on our side. Faith can comfort and sustain hope, particularly at a time when doubt about ourselves and humanity is triggered by disaster.

Maya Angelou’s words remind us at this moment of disaster: “...let us try to help before we have to offer therapy. That is to say, let’s see if we can’t prevent being ill by trying to offer a love of prevention before illness.”

Dr. Sederer is the former chief medical officer for the New York State Office of Mental Health and an adjunct professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Columbia University School of Public Health. His latest book is The Addiction Solution: Treating Our Dependence on Opioids and Other Drugs.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A large pooled analysis of almost 24,000 women showed women who breastfed had a 24% lower risk of invasive ovarian cancer.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

Multiple studies have reported a link between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but other studies have found no such link, and the evidence that the protective effects differ by histologic types has been inconclusive.

“This large study with extensive information on breastfeeding provides epidemiological evidence that breastfeeding, a potentially modifiable factor, may confer significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk, including high-grade serous, the deadliest subtype,” Ana Babic, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.

Dr. Babic led the study of a pooled analysis of women from 13 case-control studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. The study evaluated 9,973 women who had ovarian cancer and 13,843 controls, with a mean age of 57 and 56 years, respectively. The data were collected over 20 years through December 2009. Dr. Babic and colleagues claimed that this is the largest study of breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risk to date.

Besides calculating a lower risk of invasive cancer, the analysis also determined that any breastfeeding was associated with a 28% lower risk of borderline cancers, compared with women who never breastfed. “Among invasive tumors, the association was statistically significant for high-grade serous, endometrioid and clear-cell tumors,” Dr. Babic and colleagues wrote, with 25%, 27% and 22% reduced risk, respectively. The researchers also noted a similar, although not statistically significant, reduced risk for low-grade serous tumors, but no such association for mucinous tumors. For borderline tumors, breastfeeding correlated with a 32% lower risk for mucinous tumors and 23% reduction in risk for serous tumors.

The analysis included five studies with data on exclusive breastfeeding. Women who breastfed exclusively for at least 3 months had a 19% reduced risk of ovarian cancer, compared with women who never breastfed, while women who breastfed albeit not exclusively for 3 months had a 30% reduced risk. The analysis also found an association between longer duration of breastfeeding and reduced risk of invasive ovarian cancer: less than 3 months duration per child was associated with an 18% lower risk, while more than 12 months was associated with a 34% lower risk (P < .001). Other factors that seemed to mitigate risk were older age when breastfeeding and breastfeeding within the previous 10 years.

One of the strengths of the studies is that it separated low-grade and the more common and deadly high-grade serous tumors. While the analysis found similar trends with endometrioid ovarian cancers, it didn’t reach a conclusion about other invasive histotypes because there were fewer cases to evaluate. Because the study population was predominantly white, the researchers acknowledged they could not sufficiently evaluate patterns among blacks, Asian, and other ethnic groups. “The association between breastfeeding and ovarian cancer needs to be investigated in large populations of other races and ethnicities,” Dr. Babic and colleagues added.

Nonetheless, they noted that their results support the World Health Organization recommendations of at least 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding with complementary foods for 2 years or more, even though breastfeeding for less than 3 months is associated with a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk.

The study is significant because of its “thoughtful approach to addressing potential confounders (parity, age, etc.),” said David Barrington, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Ohio State University James Cancer Center in Columbus.

“For general obstetricians and gynecologists, this study provides an additional reason to advocate for breastfeeding,” Dr. Barrington added. “This data should be included in a thorough discussion of the multitudes of benefits breastfeeding provides to both the infant and the mother.”

He added that future studies should evaluate breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risks in a more ethnically diverse population. “Understanding the potential impact of modifiable risk factors for ovarian cancer is paramount to overcoming racial disparities in outcomes,” Dr. Barrington said.

The study was supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Dr. Babic reported grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Some coauthors reported grants from the NIH, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, the Danish Cancer Society, or the Mermaid I Project. Some coauthors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Barrington has no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Babic A et al. JAMA Oncology. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0421.

A large pooled analysis of almost 24,000 women showed women who breastfed had a 24% lower risk of invasive ovarian cancer.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

Multiple studies have reported a link between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but other studies have found no such link, and the evidence that the protective effects differ by histologic types has been inconclusive.

“This large study with extensive information on breastfeeding provides epidemiological evidence that breastfeeding, a potentially modifiable factor, may confer significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk, including high-grade serous, the deadliest subtype,” Ana Babic, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.

Dr. Babic led the study of a pooled analysis of women from 13 case-control studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. The study evaluated 9,973 women who had ovarian cancer and 13,843 controls, with a mean age of 57 and 56 years, respectively. The data were collected over 20 years through December 2009. Dr. Babic and colleagues claimed that this is the largest study of breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risk to date.

Besides calculating a lower risk of invasive cancer, the analysis also determined that any breastfeeding was associated with a 28% lower risk of borderline cancers, compared with women who never breastfed. “Among invasive tumors, the association was statistically significant for high-grade serous, endometrioid and clear-cell tumors,” Dr. Babic and colleagues wrote, with 25%, 27% and 22% reduced risk, respectively. The researchers also noted a similar, although not statistically significant, reduced risk for low-grade serous tumors, but no such association for mucinous tumors. For borderline tumors, breastfeeding correlated with a 32% lower risk for mucinous tumors and 23% reduction in risk for serous tumors.

The analysis included five studies with data on exclusive breastfeeding. Women who breastfed exclusively for at least 3 months had a 19% reduced risk of ovarian cancer, compared with women who never breastfed, while women who breastfed albeit not exclusively for 3 months had a 30% reduced risk. The analysis also found an association between longer duration of breastfeeding and reduced risk of invasive ovarian cancer: less than 3 months duration per child was associated with an 18% lower risk, while more than 12 months was associated with a 34% lower risk (P < .001). Other factors that seemed to mitigate risk were older age when breastfeeding and breastfeeding within the previous 10 years.

One of the strengths of the studies is that it separated low-grade and the more common and deadly high-grade serous tumors. While the analysis found similar trends with endometrioid ovarian cancers, it didn’t reach a conclusion about other invasive histotypes because there were fewer cases to evaluate. Because the study population was predominantly white, the researchers acknowledged they could not sufficiently evaluate patterns among blacks, Asian, and other ethnic groups. “The association between breastfeeding and ovarian cancer needs to be investigated in large populations of other races and ethnicities,” Dr. Babic and colleagues added.

Nonetheless, they noted that their results support the World Health Organization recommendations of at least 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding with complementary foods for 2 years or more, even though breastfeeding for less than 3 months is associated with a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk.

The study is significant because of its “thoughtful approach to addressing potential confounders (parity, age, etc.),” said David Barrington, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Ohio State University James Cancer Center in Columbus.

“For general obstetricians and gynecologists, this study provides an additional reason to advocate for breastfeeding,” Dr. Barrington added. “This data should be included in a thorough discussion of the multitudes of benefits breastfeeding provides to both the infant and the mother.”

He added that future studies should evaluate breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risks in a more ethnically diverse population. “Understanding the potential impact of modifiable risk factors for ovarian cancer is paramount to overcoming racial disparities in outcomes,” Dr. Barrington said.

The study was supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Dr. Babic reported grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Some coauthors reported grants from the NIH, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, the Danish Cancer Society, or the Mermaid I Project. Some coauthors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Barrington has no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Babic A et al. JAMA Oncology. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0421.

A large pooled analysis of almost 24,000 women showed women who breastfed had a 24% lower risk of invasive ovarian cancer.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

Multiple studies have reported a link between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but other studies have found no such link, and the evidence that the protective effects differ by histologic types has been inconclusive.

“This large study with extensive information on breastfeeding provides epidemiological evidence that breastfeeding, a potentially modifiable factor, may confer significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk, including high-grade serous, the deadliest subtype,” Ana Babic, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.

Dr. Babic led the study of a pooled analysis of women from 13 case-control studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. The study evaluated 9,973 women who had ovarian cancer and 13,843 controls, with a mean age of 57 and 56 years, respectively. The data were collected over 20 years through December 2009. Dr. Babic and colleagues claimed that this is the largest study of breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risk to date.

Besides calculating a lower risk of invasive cancer, the analysis also determined that any breastfeeding was associated with a 28% lower risk of borderline cancers, compared with women who never breastfed. “Among invasive tumors, the association was statistically significant for high-grade serous, endometrioid and clear-cell tumors,” Dr. Babic and colleagues wrote, with 25%, 27% and 22% reduced risk, respectively. The researchers also noted a similar, although not statistically significant, reduced risk for low-grade serous tumors, but no such association for mucinous tumors. For borderline tumors, breastfeeding correlated with a 32% lower risk for mucinous tumors and 23% reduction in risk for serous tumors.

The analysis included five studies with data on exclusive breastfeeding. Women who breastfed exclusively for at least 3 months had a 19% reduced risk of ovarian cancer, compared with women who never breastfed, while women who breastfed albeit not exclusively for 3 months had a 30% reduced risk. The analysis also found an association between longer duration of breastfeeding and reduced risk of invasive ovarian cancer: less than 3 months duration per child was associated with an 18% lower risk, while more than 12 months was associated with a 34% lower risk (P < .001). Other factors that seemed to mitigate risk were older age when breastfeeding and breastfeeding within the previous 10 years.

One of the strengths of the studies is that it separated low-grade and the more common and deadly high-grade serous tumors. While the analysis found similar trends with endometrioid ovarian cancers, it didn’t reach a conclusion about other invasive histotypes because there were fewer cases to evaluate. Because the study population was predominantly white, the researchers acknowledged they could not sufficiently evaluate patterns among blacks, Asian, and other ethnic groups. “The association between breastfeeding and ovarian cancer needs to be investigated in large populations of other races and ethnicities,” Dr. Babic and colleagues added.

Nonetheless, they noted that their results support the World Health Organization recommendations of at least 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding with complementary foods for 2 years or more, even though breastfeeding for less than 3 months is associated with a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk.

The study is significant because of its “thoughtful approach to addressing potential confounders (parity, age, etc.),” said David Barrington, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Ohio State University James Cancer Center in Columbus.

“For general obstetricians and gynecologists, this study provides an additional reason to advocate for breastfeeding,” Dr. Barrington added. “This data should be included in a thorough discussion of the multitudes of benefits breastfeeding provides to both the infant and the mother.”

He added that future studies should evaluate breastfeeding and ovarian cancer risks in a more ethnically diverse population. “Understanding the potential impact of modifiable risk factors for ovarian cancer is paramount to overcoming racial disparities in outcomes,” Dr. Barrington said.

The study was supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Dr. Babic reported grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Some coauthors reported grants from the NIH, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, the Danish Cancer Society, or the Mermaid I Project. Some coauthors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Barrington has no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Babic A et al. JAMA Oncology. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0421.

When Judith Salerno, MD, heard that New York was calling for volunteer clinicians to assist with the COVID-19 response, she didn’t hesitate to sign up.

Although Dr. Salerno, 68, has held administrative, research, and policy roles for 25 years, she has kept her medical license active and always found ways to squeeze some clinical work into her busy schedule.

“I have what I could consider ‘rusty’ clinical skills, but pretty good clinical judgment,” said Dr. Salerno, president of the New York Academy of Medicine. “I thought in this situation that I could resurrect and hone those skills, even if it was just taking care of routine patients and working on a team, there was a lot of good I can do.”

Dr. Salerno is among 80,000 health care professionals who have volunteered to work temporarily in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic as of March 31, 2020, according to New York state officials. In mid-March, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a plea for retired physicians and nurses to help the state by signing up for on-call work. Other states have made similar appeals for retired health care professionals to return to medicine in an effort to relieve overwhelmed hospital staffs and aid capacity if health care workers become ill. Such redeployments, however, are raising concerns about exposing senior physicians to a virus that causes more severe illness in individuals aged over 65 years and kills them at a higher rate.

At the same time, a significant portion of the current health care workforce is aged 55 years and older, placing them at higher risk for serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, said Douglas O. Staiger, PhD, a researcher and economics professor at Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Staiger recently coauthored a viewpoint in JAMA called “Older clinicians and the surge in novel coronavirus disease 2019,” which outlines the risks and mortality rates from the novel coronavirus among patients aged 55 years and older.

Protecting staff, screening volunteers

Hematologist-oncologist David H. Henry, MD, said his eight-physician group practice at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has already taken steps to protect him from COVID exposure.

At the request of his younger colleagues, Dr. Henry, 69, said he is no longer seeing patients in the hospital where there is increased exposure risk to the virus. He and the staff also limit their time in the office to 2-3 days a week and practice telemedicine the rest of the week, Dr. Henry said in an interview.

“Whether you’re a person trying to stay at home because you’re quote ‘nonessential,’ or you’re a health care worker and you have to keep seeing patients to some extent, the less we’re face to face with others the better,” said Dr. Henry, who hosts the Blood & Cancer podcast for MDedge News. “There’s an extreme and a middle ground. If they told me just to stay home that wouldn’t help anybody. If they said, ‘business as usual,’ that would be wrong. This is a middle strategy, which is reasonable, rational, and will help dial this dangerous time down as fast as possible.”

On a recent weekend when Dr. Henry would normally have been on call in the hospital, he took phone calls for his colleagues at home while they saw patients in the hospital. This included calls with patients who had questions and consultation calls with other physicians.

“They are helping me and I am helping them,” Dr. Henry said. “Taking those calls makes it easier for my partners to see all those patients. We all want to help and be there, within reason. You want to step up an do your job, but you want to be safe.”

Peter D. Quinn, DMD, MD, chief executive physician of the Penn Medicine Medical Group, said safeguarding the health of its workforce is a top priority as Penn Medicine works to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This includes ensuring that all employees adhere to Centers for Disease Control and Penn Medicine infection prevention guidance as they continue their normal clinical work,” Dr. Quinn said in an interview. “Though age alone is not a criterion to remove frontline staff from direct clinical care during the COVID-19 outbreak, certain conditions such as cardiac or lung disease may be, and clinicians who have concerns are urged to speak with their leadership about options to fill clinical or support roles remotely.”

Meanwhile, for states calling on retired health professionals to assist during the pandemic, thorough screenings that identify high-risk volunteers are essential to protect vulnerable clinicians, said Nathaniel Hibbs, DO, president of the Colorado chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

After Colorado issued a statewide request for retired clinicians to help, Dr. Hibbs became concerned that the state’s website initially included only a basic set of questions for interested volunteers.

“It didn’t have screening questions for prior health problems, comorbidities, or things like high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease – the high-risk factors that we associate with bad outcomes if people get infected with COVID,” Dr. Hibbs said in an interview.

Tapping talent, sharing knowledge

When Barbara L. Schuster, MD, 69, filled out paperwork to join the Georgia Medical Reserve Corps, she answered a range of questions, including inquiries about her age, specialty, licensing, and whether she had any major medical conditions.

“They sent out instructions that said, if you are over the age of 60, we really don’t want you to be doing inpatient or ambulatory with active patients,” said Dr. Schuster, a retired medical school dean in the Athens, Ga., area. “Unless they get to a point where it’s going to be you or nobody, I think that they try to protect us for both our sake and also theirs.”

Dr. Schuster opted for telehealth or administrative duties, but has not yet been called upon to help. The Athens area has not seen high numbers of COVID-19 patients, compared with other parts of the country, and there have not been many volunteer opportunities for physicians thus far, she said. In the meantime, Dr. Schuster has found other ways to give her time, such as answering questions from community members on both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 topics, and offering guidance to medical students.

“I’ve spent an increasing number of hours on Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime meeting with them to talk about various issues,” Dr. Schuster said.

“It’s important for hospitals that are anticipating a surge of critically ill patients to assess their workforce’s capability, including the proportion of older clinicians,” he said. “Is there something organizations can do differently to lessen older physicians’ and nurses’ direct patient contact and reduce their risk of infection?”

Dr. Buerhaus’ JAMA piece offers a range of ideas and assignments for older clinicians during the pandemic, including consulting with younger staff, advising on resources, assisting with clinical and organizational problem solving, aiding clinicians and managers with challenging decisions, consulting with patient families, advising managers and executives, being public spokespersons, and working with public and community health organizations.

“Older clinicians are at increased risk of becoming seriously ill if infected, but yet they’re also the ones who perhaps some of the best minds and experiences to help organizations combat the pandemic,” Dr. Buerhaus said. “These clinicians have great backgrounds and skills and 20, 30, 40 years of experience to draw on, including dealing with prior medical emergencies. I would hope that organizations, if they can, use the time before becoming a hotspot as an opportunity where the younger workforce could be teamed up with some of the older clinicians and learn as much as possible. It’s a great opportunity to share this wealth of knowledge with the workforce that will carry on after the pandemic.”

Since responding to New York’s call for volunteers, Dr. Salerno has been assigned to a palliative care inpatient team at a Manhattan hospital where she is working with large numbers of ICU patients and their families.

“My experience as a geriatrician helps me in talking with anxious and concerned families, especially when they are unable to see or communicate with their critically ill loved ones,” she said.

Before she was assigned the post, Dr. Salerno said she heard concerns from her adult children, who would prefer their mom take on a volunteer telehealth role. At the time, Dr. Salerno said she was not opposed to a telehealth assignment, but stressed to her family that she would go where she was needed.

“I’m healthy enough to run an organization, work long hours, long weeks; I have the stamina. The only thing working against me is age,” she said. “To say I’m not concerned is not honest. Of course I’m concerned. Am I afraid? No. I’m hoping that we can all be kept safe.”
 

[email protected]

When Judith Salerno, MD, heard that New York was calling for volunteer clinicians to assist with the COVID-19 response, she didn’t hesitate to sign up.

Although Dr. Salerno, 68, has held administrative, research, and policy roles for 25 years, she has kept her medical license active and always found ways to squeeze some clinical work into her busy schedule.

“I have what I could consider ‘rusty’ clinical skills, but pretty good clinical judgment,” said Dr. Salerno, president of the New York Academy of Medicine. “I thought in this situation that I could resurrect and hone those skills, even if it was just taking care of routine patients and working on a team, there was a lot of good I can do.”

Dr. Salerno is among 80,000 health care professionals who have volunteered to work temporarily in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic as of March 31, 2020, according to New York state officials. In mid-March, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a plea for retired physicians and nurses to help the state by signing up for on-call work. Other states have made similar appeals for retired health care professionals to return to medicine in an effort to relieve overwhelmed hospital staffs and aid capacity if health care workers become ill. Such redeployments, however, are raising concerns about exposing senior physicians to a virus that causes more severe illness in individuals aged over 65 years and kills them at a higher rate.

At the same time, a significant portion of the current health care workforce is aged 55 years and older, placing them at higher risk for serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, said Douglas O. Staiger, PhD, a researcher and economics professor at Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Staiger recently coauthored a viewpoint in JAMA called “Older clinicians and the surge in novel coronavirus disease 2019,” which outlines the risks and mortality rates from the novel coronavirus among patients aged 55 years and older.

Protecting staff, screening volunteers

Hematologist-oncologist David H. Henry, MD, said his eight-physician group practice at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has already taken steps to protect him from COVID exposure.

At the request of his younger colleagues, Dr. Henry, 69, said he is no longer seeing patients in the hospital where there is increased exposure risk to the virus. He and the staff also limit their time in the office to 2-3 days a week and practice telemedicine the rest of the week, Dr. Henry said in an interview.

“Whether you’re a person trying to stay at home because you’re quote ‘nonessential,’ or you’re a health care worker and you have to keep seeing patients to some extent, the less we’re face to face with others the better,” said Dr. Henry, who hosts the Blood & Cancer podcast for MDedge News. “There’s an extreme and a middle ground. If they told me just to stay home that wouldn’t help anybody. If they said, ‘business as usual,’ that would be wrong. This is a middle strategy, which is reasonable, rational, and will help dial this dangerous time down as fast as possible.”

On a recent weekend when Dr. Henry would normally have been on call in the hospital, he took phone calls for his colleagues at home while they saw patients in the hospital. This included calls with patients who had questions and consultation calls with other physicians.

“They are helping me and I am helping them,” Dr. Henry said. “Taking those calls makes it easier for my partners to see all those patients. We all want to help and be there, within reason. You want to step up an do your job, but you want to be safe.”

Peter D. Quinn, DMD, MD, chief executive physician of the Penn Medicine Medical Group, said safeguarding the health of its workforce is a top priority as Penn Medicine works to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This includes ensuring that all employees adhere to Centers for Disease Control and Penn Medicine infection prevention guidance as they continue their normal clinical work,” Dr. Quinn said in an interview. “Though age alone is not a criterion to remove frontline staff from direct clinical care during the COVID-19 outbreak, certain conditions such as cardiac or lung disease may be, and clinicians who have concerns are urged to speak with their leadership about options to fill clinical or support roles remotely.”

Meanwhile, for states calling on retired health professionals to assist during the pandemic, thorough screenings that identify high-risk volunteers are essential to protect vulnerable clinicians, said Nathaniel Hibbs, DO, president of the Colorado chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

After Colorado issued a statewide request for retired clinicians to help, Dr. Hibbs became concerned that the state’s website initially included only a basic set of questions for interested volunteers.

“It didn’t have screening questions for prior health problems, comorbidities, or things like high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease – the high-risk factors that we associate with bad outcomes if people get infected with COVID,” Dr. Hibbs said in an interview.

Tapping talent, sharing knowledge

When Barbara L. Schuster, MD, 69, filled out paperwork to join the Georgia Medical Reserve Corps, she answered a range of questions, including inquiries about her age, specialty, licensing, and whether she had any major medical conditions.

“They sent out instructions that said, if you are over the age of 60, we really don’t want you to be doing inpatient or ambulatory with active patients,” said Dr. Schuster, a retired medical school dean in the Athens, Ga., area. “Unless they get to a point where it’s going to be you or nobody, I think that they try to protect us for both our sake and also theirs.”

Dr. Schuster opted for telehealth or administrative duties, but has not yet been called upon to help. The Athens area has not seen high numbers of COVID-19 patients, compared with other parts of the country, and there have not been many volunteer opportunities for physicians thus far, she said. In the meantime, Dr. Schuster has found other ways to give her time, such as answering questions from community members on both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 topics, and offering guidance to medical students.

“I’ve spent an increasing number of hours on Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime meeting with them to talk about various issues,” Dr. Schuster said.

“It’s important for hospitals that are anticipating a surge of critically ill patients to assess their workforce’s capability, including the proportion of older clinicians,” he said. “Is there something organizations can do differently to lessen older physicians’ and nurses’ direct patient contact and reduce their risk of infection?”

Dr. Buerhaus’ JAMA piece offers a range of ideas and assignments for older clinicians during the pandemic, including consulting with younger staff, advising on resources, assisting with clinical and organizational problem solving, aiding clinicians and managers with challenging decisions, consulting with patient families, advising managers and executives, being public spokespersons, and working with public and community health organizations.

“Older clinicians are at increased risk of becoming seriously ill if infected, but yet they’re also the ones who perhaps some of the best minds and experiences to help organizations combat the pandemic,” Dr. Buerhaus said. “These clinicians have great backgrounds and skills and 20, 30, 40 years of experience to draw on, including dealing with prior medical emergencies. I would hope that organizations, if they can, use the time before becoming a hotspot as an opportunity where the younger workforce could be teamed up with some of the older clinicians and learn as much as possible. It’s a great opportunity to share this wealth of knowledge with the workforce that will carry on after the pandemic.”

Since responding to New York’s call for volunteers, Dr. Salerno has been assigned to a palliative care inpatient team at a Manhattan hospital where she is working with large numbers of ICU patients and their families.

“My experience as a geriatrician helps me in talking with anxious and concerned families, especially when they are unable to see or communicate with their critically ill loved ones,” she said.

Before she was assigned the post, Dr. Salerno said she heard concerns from her adult children, who would prefer their mom take on a volunteer telehealth role. At the time, Dr. Salerno said she was not opposed to a telehealth assignment, but stressed to her family that she would go where she was needed.

“I’m healthy enough to run an organization, work long hours, long weeks; I have the stamina. The only thing working against me is age,” she said. “To say I’m not concerned is not honest. Of course I’m concerned. Am I afraid? No. I’m hoping that we can all be kept safe.”
 

[email protected]

When Judith Salerno, MD, heard that New York was calling for volunteer clinicians to assist with the COVID-19 response, she didn’t hesitate to sign up.

Although Dr. Salerno, 68, has held administrative, research, and policy roles for 25 years, she has kept her medical license active and always found ways to squeeze some clinical work into her busy schedule.

“I have what I could consider ‘rusty’ clinical skills, but pretty good clinical judgment,” said Dr. Salerno, president of the New York Academy of Medicine. “I thought in this situation that I could resurrect and hone those skills, even if it was just taking care of routine patients and working on a team, there was a lot of good I can do.”

Dr. Salerno is among 80,000 health care professionals who have volunteered to work temporarily in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic as of March 31, 2020, according to New York state officials. In mid-March, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a plea for retired physicians and nurses to help the state by signing up for on-call work. Other states have made similar appeals for retired health care professionals to return to medicine in an effort to relieve overwhelmed hospital staffs and aid capacity if health care workers become ill. Such redeployments, however, are raising concerns about exposing senior physicians to a virus that causes more severe illness in individuals aged over 65 years and kills them at a higher rate.

At the same time, a significant portion of the current health care workforce is aged 55 years and older, placing them at higher risk for serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, said Douglas O. Staiger, PhD, a researcher and economics professor at Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Staiger recently coauthored a viewpoint in JAMA called “Older clinicians and the surge in novel coronavirus disease 2019,” which outlines the risks and mortality rates from the novel coronavirus among patients aged 55 years and older.

Protecting staff, screening volunteers

Hematologist-oncologist David H. Henry, MD, said his eight-physician group practice at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has already taken steps to protect him from COVID exposure.

At the request of his younger colleagues, Dr. Henry, 69, said he is no longer seeing patients in the hospital where there is increased exposure risk to the virus. He and the staff also limit their time in the office to 2-3 days a week and practice telemedicine the rest of the week, Dr. Henry said in an interview.

“Whether you’re a person trying to stay at home because you’re quote ‘nonessential,’ or you’re a health care worker and you have to keep seeing patients to some extent, the less we’re face to face with others the better,” said Dr. Henry, who hosts the Blood & Cancer podcast for MDedge News. “There’s an extreme and a middle ground. If they told me just to stay home that wouldn’t help anybody. If they said, ‘business as usual,’ that would be wrong. This is a middle strategy, which is reasonable, rational, and will help dial this dangerous time down as fast as possible.”

On a recent weekend when Dr. Henry would normally have been on call in the hospital, he took phone calls for his colleagues at home while they saw patients in the hospital. This included calls with patients who had questions and consultation calls with other physicians.

“They are helping me and I am helping them,” Dr. Henry said. “Taking those calls makes it easier for my partners to see all those patients. We all want to help and be there, within reason. You want to step up an do your job, but you want to be safe.”

Peter D. Quinn, DMD, MD, chief executive physician of the Penn Medicine Medical Group, said safeguarding the health of its workforce is a top priority as Penn Medicine works to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This includes ensuring that all employees adhere to Centers for Disease Control and Penn Medicine infection prevention guidance as they continue their normal clinical work,” Dr. Quinn said in an interview. “Though age alone is not a criterion to remove frontline staff from direct clinical care during the COVID-19 outbreak, certain conditions such as cardiac or lung disease may be, and clinicians who have concerns are urged to speak with their leadership about options to fill clinical or support roles remotely.”

Meanwhile, for states calling on retired health professionals to assist during the pandemic, thorough screenings that identify high-risk volunteers are essential to protect vulnerable clinicians, said Nathaniel Hibbs, DO, president of the Colorado chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

After Colorado issued a statewide request for retired clinicians to help, Dr. Hibbs became concerned that the state’s website initially included only a basic set of questions for interested volunteers.

“It didn’t have screening questions for prior health problems, comorbidities, or things like high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease – the high-risk factors that we associate with bad outcomes if people get infected with COVID,” Dr. Hibbs said in an interview.

Tapping talent, sharing knowledge

When Barbara L. Schuster, MD, 69, filled out paperwork to join the Georgia Medical Reserve Corps, she answered a range of questions, including inquiries about her age, specialty, licensing, and whether she had any major medical conditions.

“They sent out instructions that said, if you are over the age of 60, we really don’t want you to be doing inpatient or ambulatory with active patients,” said Dr. Schuster, a retired medical school dean in the Athens, Ga., area. “Unless they get to a point where it’s going to be you or nobody, I think that they try to protect us for both our sake and also theirs.”

Dr. Schuster opted for telehealth or administrative duties, but has not yet been called upon to help. The Athens area has not seen high numbers of COVID-19 patients, compared with other parts of the country, and there have not been many volunteer opportunities for physicians thus far, she said. In the meantime, Dr. Schuster has found other ways to give her time, such as answering questions from community members on both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 topics, and offering guidance to medical students.

“I’ve spent an increasing number of hours on Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime meeting with them to talk about various issues,” Dr. Schuster said.

“It’s important for hospitals that are anticipating a surge of critically ill patients to assess their workforce’s capability, including the proportion of older clinicians,” he said. “Is there something organizations can do differently to lessen older physicians’ and nurses’ direct patient contact and reduce their risk of infection?”

Dr. Buerhaus’ JAMA piece offers a range of ideas and assignments for older clinicians during the pandemic, including consulting with younger staff, advising on resources, assisting with clinical and organizational problem solving, aiding clinicians and managers with challenging decisions, consulting with patient families, advising managers and executives, being public spokespersons, and working with public and community health organizations.

“Older clinicians are at increased risk of becoming seriously ill if infected, but yet they’re also the ones who perhaps some of the best minds and experiences to help organizations combat the pandemic,” Dr. Buerhaus said. “These clinicians have great backgrounds and skills and 20, 30, 40 years of experience to draw on, including dealing with prior medical emergencies. I would hope that organizations, if they can, use the time before becoming a hotspot as an opportunity where the younger workforce could be teamed up with some of the older clinicians and learn as much as possible. It’s a great opportunity to share this wealth of knowledge with the workforce that will carry on after the pandemic.”

Since responding to New York’s call for volunteers, Dr. Salerno has been assigned to a palliative care inpatient team at a Manhattan hospital where she is working with large numbers of ICU patients and their families.

“My experience as a geriatrician helps me in talking with anxious and concerned families, especially when they are unable to see or communicate with their critically ill loved ones,” she said.

Before she was assigned the post, Dr. Salerno said she heard concerns from her adult children, who would prefer their mom take on a volunteer telehealth role. At the time, Dr. Salerno said she was not opposed to a telehealth assignment, but stressed to her family that she would go where she was needed.

“I’m healthy enough to run an organization, work long hours, long weeks; I have the stamina. The only thing working against me is age,” she said. “To say I’m not concerned is not honest. Of course I’m concerned. Am I afraid? No. I’m hoping that we can all be kept safe.”
 

[email protected]

A woman presented to the emergency department with high liver enzyme levels and dark urine. She developed fever on day 2 of care, and then tested positive for the new coronavirus, researchers at Northwell Health, in Hempstead, New York, report.

The authors say the case, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, is the first documented instance of a patient with COVID-19 presenting with acute hepatitis as the primary symptom before developing respiratory symptoms.

Prior data show that the most common early indications of COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms with fever, shortness of breath, sore throat, and cough, and with imaging results consistent with pneumonia. However, liver enzyme abnormalities are not uncommon in the disease course.

“In patients who are now presenting with acute hepatitis, people need to think of COVID,” senior author David Bernstein, MD, chief of the Division of Hepatology at Northwell Health, told Medscape Medical News.

In addition to Bernstein, Praneet Wander, MD, also in Northwell’s hepatology division, and Marcia Epstein, MD, with Northwell’s Department of Infectious Disease, authored the case report.

Bernstein said Northwell currently has the largest number of COVID-19 cases in the nation and that many patients are presenting with abnormal liver test results and COVID-19 symptoms.

He said that anecdotally, colleagues elsewhere in the United States are also reporting the connection.

“It seems to be that the liver enzyme elevations are part and parcel of this disease,” he said.

Case Details

According to the case report, the 59-year-old woman, who lives alone, came to the emergency department with a chief complaint of dark urine. She was given a face mask and was isolated, per protocol.

“She denied cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain,” the authors wrote. She denied having been in contact with someone who was sick.

She had well-controlled HIV, and recent outpatient liver test results were normal. Eighteen hours after she came to the ED, she was admitted, owing to concern regarding rising liver enzyme levels in conjunction with her being HIV positive.

On presentation, her temperature was 98.9° F. There were no skin indications, lungs were normal, and “there was no jaundice, right upper quadrant tenderness, hepatomegaly or splenomegaly.”

Liver enzyme levels were as follows: aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 1230 (IU/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 697 IU/L (normal for both is < 50 IU/L); alkaline phosphatase, 141 IU/L (normal, < 125 IU/L).

The patient tested negative for hepatitis A, B, C, E, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus. A respiratory viral panel and autoimmune markers were normal.
 

Fever Appeared on Day 2

She was admitted, and 18 hours after she came to the ED, she developed a fever of 102.2° F. A chest x-ray showed interstitial opacities in both lungs.

Nasopharyngeal samples were taken, and polymerase chain reaction test results were positive for the novel coronavirus. The patient was placed on 3 L of oxygen.

On post admission day 4, a 5-day course of hydroxychloroquine (200 mg twice a day) was initiated.

The patient was discharged to home on hospital day 8. The serum bilirubin level was 0.6 mg/dL; AST, 114 IU/L; ALT, 227 IU/L; and alkaline phosphatase, 259 IU/L.

According to Bernstein, it’s hard to tell in what order COVID-19 symptoms occur because people are staying home with other complaints. They may only present to the emergency department after they develop more typical COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

In this case, the patient noticed a darkening of her urine, “but if she had come the next day, she would have had fever. I think we just happened to catch it early,” Bernstein said.

He added that he saw no connection between the underlying HIV and her liver abnormalities or COVID-19 diagnosis.

Bernstein notes that most COVID-19 patients are not admitted, and he said he worries that a COVID-19 test might not be on the radar of providers in the outpatient setting when a patient presents with elevated liver enzymes levels.

If elevated liver enzyme levels can predict disease course, the information could alter how and where the disease is treated, Bernstein said.

“This is a first report. We’re really right now in the beginning of learning,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A woman presented to the emergency department with high liver enzyme levels and dark urine. She developed fever on day 2 of care, and then tested positive for the new coronavirus, researchers at Northwell Health, in Hempstead, New York, report.

The authors say the case, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, is the first documented instance of a patient with COVID-19 presenting with acute hepatitis as the primary symptom before developing respiratory symptoms.

Prior data show that the most common early indications of COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms with fever, shortness of breath, sore throat, and cough, and with imaging results consistent with pneumonia. However, liver enzyme abnormalities are not uncommon in the disease course.

“In patients who are now presenting with acute hepatitis, people need to think of COVID,” senior author David Bernstein, MD, chief of the Division of Hepatology at Northwell Health, told Medscape Medical News.

In addition to Bernstein, Praneet Wander, MD, also in Northwell’s hepatology division, and Marcia Epstein, MD, with Northwell’s Department of Infectious Disease, authored the case report.

Bernstein said Northwell currently has the largest number of COVID-19 cases in the nation and that many patients are presenting with abnormal liver test results and COVID-19 symptoms.

He said that anecdotally, colleagues elsewhere in the United States are also reporting the connection.

“It seems to be that the liver enzyme elevations are part and parcel of this disease,” he said.

Case Details

According to the case report, the 59-year-old woman, who lives alone, came to the emergency department with a chief complaint of dark urine. She was given a face mask and was isolated, per protocol.

“She denied cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain,” the authors wrote. She denied having been in contact with someone who was sick.

She had well-controlled HIV, and recent outpatient liver test results were normal. Eighteen hours after she came to the ED, she was admitted, owing to concern regarding rising liver enzyme levels in conjunction with her being HIV positive.

On presentation, her temperature was 98.9° F. There were no skin indications, lungs were normal, and “there was no jaundice, right upper quadrant tenderness, hepatomegaly or splenomegaly.”

Liver enzyme levels were as follows: aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 1230 (IU/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 697 IU/L (normal for both is < 50 IU/L); alkaline phosphatase, 141 IU/L (normal, < 125 IU/L).

The patient tested negative for hepatitis A, B, C, E, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus. A respiratory viral panel and autoimmune markers were normal.
 

Fever Appeared on Day 2

She was admitted, and 18 hours after she came to the ED, she developed a fever of 102.2° F. A chest x-ray showed interstitial opacities in both lungs.

Nasopharyngeal samples were taken, and polymerase chain reaction test results were positive for the novel coronavirus. The patient was placed on 3 L of oxygen.

On post admission day 4, a 5-day course of hydroxychloroquine (200 mg twice a day) was initiated.

The patient was discharged to home on hospital day 8. The serum bilirubin level was 0.6 mg/dL; AST, 114 IU/L; ALT, 227 IU/L; and alkaline phosphatase, 259 IU/L.

According to Bernstein, it’s hard to tell in what order COVID-19 symptoms occur because people are staying home with other complaints. They may only present to the emergency department after they develop more typical COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

In this case, the patient noticed a darkening of her urine, “but if she had come the next day, she would have had fever. I think we just happened to catch it early,” Bernstein said.

He added that he saw no connection between the underlying HIV and her liver abnormalities or COVID-19 diagnosis.

Bernstein notes that most COVID-19 patients are not admitted, and he said he worries that a COVID-19 test might not be on the radar of providers in the outpatient setting when a patient presents with elevated liver enzymes levels.

If elevated liver enzyme levels can predict disease course, the information could alter how and where the disease is treated, Bernstein said.

“This is a first report. We’re really right now in the beginning of learning,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A woman presented to the emergency department with high liver enzyme levels and dark urine. She developed fever on day 2 of care, and then tested positive for the new coronavirus, researchers at Northwell Health, in Hempstead, New York, report.

The authors say the case, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, is the first documented instance of a patient with COVID-19 presenting with acute hepatitis as the primary symptom before developing respiratory symptoms.

Prior data show that the most common early indications of COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms with fever, shortness of breath, sore throat, and cough, and with imaging results consistent with pneumonia. However, liver enzyme abnormalities are not uncommon in the disease course.

“In patients who are now presenting with acute hepatitis, people need to think of COVID,” senior author David Bernstein, MD, chief of the Division of Hepatology at Northwell Health, told Medscape Medical News.

In addition to Bernstein, Praneet Wander, MD, also in Northwell’s hepatology division, and Marcia Epstein, MD, with Northwell’s Department of Infectious Disease, authored the case report.

Bernstein said Northwell currently has the largest number of COVID-19 cases in the nation and that many patients are presenting with abnormal liver test results and COVID-19 symptoms.

He said that anecdotally, colleagues elsewhere in the United States are also reporting the connection.

“It seems to be that the liver enzyme elevations are part and parcel of this disease,” he said.

Case Details

According to the case report, the 59-year-old woman, who lives alone, came to the emergency department with a chief complaint of dark urine. She was given a face mask and was isolated, per protocol.

“She denied cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain,” the authors wrote. She denied having been in contact with someone who was sick.

She had well-controlled HIV, and recent outpatient liver test results were normal. Eighteen hours after she came to the ED, she was admitted, owing to concern regarding rising liver enzyme levels in conjunction with her being HIV positive.

On presentation, her temperature was 98.9° F. There were no skin indications, lungs were normal, and “there was no jaundice, right upper quadrant tenderness, hepatomegaly or splenomegaly.”

Liver enzyme levels were as follows: aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 1230 (IU/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 697 IU/L (normal for both is < 50 IU/L); alkaline phosphatase, 141 IU/L (normal, < 125 IU/L).

The patient tested negative for hepatitis A, B, C, E, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus. A respiratory viral panel and autoimmune markers were normal.
 

Fever Appeared on Day 2

She was admitted, and 18 hours after she came to the ED, she developed a fever of 102.2° F. A chest x-ray showed interstitial opacities in both lungs.

Nasopharyngeal samples were taken, and polymerase chain reaction test results were positive for the novel coronavirus. The patient was placed on 3 L of oxygen.

On post admission day 4, a 5-day course of hydroxychloroquine (200 mg twice a day) was initiated.

The patient was discharged to home on hospital day 8. The serum bilirubin level was 0.6 mg/dL; AST, 114 IU/L; ALT, 227 IU/L; and alkaline phosphatase, 259 IU/L.

According to Bernstein, it’s hard to tell in what order COVID-19 symptoms occur because people are staying home with other complaints. They may only present to the emergency department after they develop more typical COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

In this case, the patient noticed a darkening of her urine, “but if she had come the next day, she would have had fever. I think we just happened to catch it early,” Bernstein said.

He added that he saw no connection between the underlying HIV and her liver abnormalities or COVID-19 diagnosis.

Bernstein notes that most COVID-19 patients are not admitted, and he said he worries that a COVID-19 test might not be on the radar of providers in the outpatient setting when a patient presents with elevated liver enzymes levels.

If elevated liver enzyme levels can predict disease course, the information could alter how and where the disease is treated, Bernstein said.

“This is a first report. We’re really right now in the beginning of learning,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In my New Mexico reproductive health clinic one week in early April, I saw more than twice the number of patients usually scheduled, all seeking abortion care. Two-thirds of those patients were from Texas – some came from towns as close as 6 hours away, and at least two drove for more than 11 hours to receive care at our clinic. In addition to the many reasons women pursue abortion care, all of my patients had an overriding concern about the COVID-19 pandemic. Many worried for the safety of their parents and children; some worried about the safety of continuing a pregnancy during the pandemic; and many were worried for themselves because of the risk involved in their employment or their status as the sole breadwinner for their families. One patient chose an abortion for severe fetal anomalies diagnosed in the early second trimester; she had an appointment with a provider in Texas, which was canceled the day the Texas abortion ban was reinstated. New Mexico, more than 10 hours away, was the closest location to receive the care she needed; she traveled by car with her children.

I am fortunate to live in New Mexico. On March 24, New Mexico Secretary of Health Kathyleen “Kathy” Kunkel affirmed reproductive health care as an essential service. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the U.S. professional organization for reproductive health care, agrees. In a joint statement with seven other professional organizations, they emphasize the importance of abortion access: “Abortion is an essential component of comprehensive health care. It is also a time-sensitive service. The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person’s life, health, and well-being.”

Anti-abortion politicians are using the crisis as an opportunity to restrict health care access as they have done for my patients who have driven hundreds of miles for essential care they should receive in their home communities. My heart goes out to our patients and the burden they have been forced to take on at a time when our politicians should be protecting and ensuring their safety. Particularly during this national emergency, we should come together to support women and families, and to ensure all of our health care needs are met.

Dr. Espey is an obstetrician and gynecologist in New Mexico. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Espey is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board. Email her at [email protected].

In my New Mexico reproductive health clinic one week in early April, I saw more than twice the number of patients usually scheduled, all seeking abortion care. Two-thirds of those patients were from Texas – some came from towns as close as 6 hours away, and at least two drove for more than 11 hours to receive care at our clinic. In addition to the many reasons women pursue abortion care, all of my patients had an overriding concern about the COVID-19 pandemic. Many worried for the safety of their parents and children; some worried about the safety of continuing a pregnancy during the pandemic; and many were worried for themselves because of the risk involved in their employment or their status as the sole breadwinner for their families. One patient chose an abortion for severe fetal anomalies diagnosed in the early second trimester; she had an appointment with a provider in Texas, which was canceled the day the Texas abortion ban was reinstated. New Mexico, more than 10 hours away, was the closest location to receive the care she needed; she traveled by car with her children.

I am fortunate to live in New Mexico. On March 24, New Mexico Secretary of Health Kathyleen “Kathy” Kunkel affirmed reproductive health care as an essential service. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the U.S. professional organization for reproductive health care, agrees. In a joint statement with seven other professional organizations, they emphasize the importance of abortion access: “Abortion is an essential component of comprehensive health care. It is also a time-sensitive service. The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person’s life, health, and well-being.”

Anti-abortion politicians are using the crisis as an opportunity to restrict health care access as they have done for my patients who have driven hundreds of miles for essential care they should receive in their home communities. My heart goes out to our patients and the burden they have been forced to take on at a time when our politicians should be protecting and ensuring their safety. Particularly during this national emergency, we should come together to support women and families, and to ensure all of our health care needs are met.

Dr. Espey is an obstetrician and gynecologist in New Mexico. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Espey is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board. Email her at [email protected].

In my New Mexico reproductive health clinic one week in early April, I saw more than twice the number of patients usually scheduled, all seeking abortion care. Two-thirds of those patients were from Texas – some came from towns as close as 6 hours away, and at least two drove for more than 11 hours to receive care at our clinic. In addition to the many reasons women pursue abortion care, all of my patients had an overriding concern about the COVID-19 pandemic. Many worried for the safety of their parents and children; some worried about the safety of continuing a pregnancy during the pandemic; and many were worried for themselves because of the risk involved in their employment or their status as the sole breadwinner for their families. One patient chose an abortion for severe fetal anomalies diagnosed in the early second trimester; she had an appointment with a provider in Texas, which was canceled the day the Texas abortion ban was reinstated. New Mexico, more than 10 hours away, was the closest location to receive the care she needed; she traveled by car with her children.

I am fortunate to live in New Mexico. On March 24, New Mexico Secretary of Health Kathyleen “Kathy” Kunkel affirmed reproductive health care as an essential service. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the U.S. professional organization for reproductive health care, agrees. In a joint statement with seven other professional organizations, they emphasize the importance of abortion access: “Abortion is an essential component of comprehensive health care. It is also a time-sensitive service. The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person’s life, health, and well-being.”

Anti-abortion politicians are using the crisis as an opportunity to restrict health care access as they have done for my patients who have driven hundreds of miles for essential care they should receive in their home communities. My heart goes out to our patients and the burden they have been forced to take on at a time when our politicians should be protecting and ensuring their safety. Particularly during this national emergency, we should come together to support women and families, and to ensure all of our health care needs are met.

Dr. Espey is an obstetrician and gynecologist in New Mexico. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Espey is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board. Email her at [email protected].

Maternal preconception exposure to phthalates was associated with increased risk of preterm birth, according to a study of 420 births to subfertile couples over a 13-year period.

Previous studies have shown increased risk of preterm birth associated with prenatal exposure to phthalates, which are commonly found in a range of household and commercial products as well as medical equipment and some pharmaceuticals.

“Our results suggest that female exposure to [4 di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate] DEHP before conception might be an unrecognized risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, often overlooked in clinical practice,” wrote Yu Zhang of the department of environmental health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

The prospective cohort study evaluated preconception urinary levels of phthalates and phthalate substitutes in 419 women and 229 men participating in the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study, a cohort of couples seeking fertility care at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center. The study cohort gave birth during 2005-2018. The average gestational age of the 420 singleton children born to this cohort was 39 weeks, with 8% (n = 34) born preterm.

Adjusted models showed that maternal preconception urinary concentrations of phthalates and of cyclohexane-1, 2-dicarboxylic acid monohydroxy isononyl ester (MHiNCH), a metabolite of a nonphthalate plasticizer substitute, were associated with a 50% and 70% increased risk of preterm birth, respectively (P = .01, .11), according to results published in JAMA Network Open .

Sensitivity analysis showed that maternal preconception MHiNCH concentrations above the median were associated with a fourfold increased risk of preterm birth (risk ratio, 4.02; P = .08), Maternal preconception MHiNCH concentrations were associated with an average 2-day reduction in gestational age (P = .02).

Covariate-adjusted models found that paternal urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations were associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (RR, 1.41; P = .09), but this association was attenuated toward zero (RR, 1.06) in models that accounted for maternal preconception phthalate concentrations. Sensitivity analysis of 228 couples found the associations of maternal preconception phthalate metabolite concentrations and preterm birth remained robust in three different models: a twofold increased risk in covariate-adjusted models (P < .001); an almost fivefold increased risk in adjusting for prenatal levels (RR, 4.98; P < .001); and a twofold risk (P = .001) in adjusting for paternal levels. “Couple-based analyses confirmed the results for an association between maternal preconception DEHP concentrations and increased risk of preterm birth,” the investigators said.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating couples’ exposure to phthalate metabolites during the preconception window and its association with preterm birth,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings support a novel hypothesis: Maternal phthalate exposure during the critical period before conception may be associated with shorter gestation.”

“This study is consistent with several, but not all, prior studies supporting maternal prenatal exposure to phthalates increase preterm birth,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. “The uniqueness of the current study was the assessment of couples’ exposures and the outcome, though paternal exposure to phthalates did not demonstrate a significant association.”

Dr. Trolice noted that about 25% of women in the study were smokers, but the study didn’t adjust for tobacco use and phthalate exposure, and 85% of the women were white. He urged caution in applying the study results in practice, adding that the study didn’t adjust for method of conception. “Assisted reproductive technology, multiple gestation, and advanced age are all known risk factors for preterm birth,”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Science funded the study. Two study coauthors received grants from the NIEHS, one coauthor received grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one received a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Trolice has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Zhang Y et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2159.

Maternal preconception exposure to phthalates was associated with increased risk of preterm birth, according to a study of 420 births to subfertile couples over a 13-year period.

Previous studies have shown increased risk of preterm birth associated with prenatal exposure to phthalates, which are commonly found in a range of household and commercial products as well as medical equipment and some pharmaceuticals.

“Our results suggest that female exposure to [4 di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate] DEHP before conception might be an unrecognized risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, often overlooked in clinical practice,” wrote Yu Zhang of the department of environmental health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

The prospective cohort study evaluated preconception urinary levels of phthalates and phthalate substitutes in 419 women and 229 men participating in the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study, a cohort of couples seeking fertility care at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center. The study cohort gave birth during 2005-2018. The average gestational age of the 420 singleton children born to this cohort was 39 weeks, with 8% (n = 34) born preterm.

Adjusted models showed that maternal preconception urinary concentrations of phthalates and of cyclohexane-1, 2-dicarboxylic acid monohydroxy isononyl ester (MHiNCH), a metabolite of a nonphthalate plasticizer substitute, were associated with a 50% and 70% increased risk of preterm birth, respectively (P = .01, .11), according to results published in JAMA Network Open .

Sensitivity analysis showed that maternal preconception MHiNCH concentrations above the median were associated with a fourfold increased risk of preterm birth (risk ratio, 4.02; P = .08), Maternal preconception MHiNCH concentrations were associated with an average 2-day reduction in gestational age (P = .02).

Covariate-adjusted models found that paternal urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations were associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (RR, 1.41; P = .09), but this association was attenuated toward zero (RR, 1.06) in models that accounted for maternal preconception phthalate concentrations. Sensitivity analysis of 228 couples found the associations of maternal preconception phthalate metabolite concentrations and preterm birth remained robust in three different models: a twofold increased risk in covariate-adjusted models (P < .001); an almost fivefold increased risk in adjusting for prenatal levels (RR, 4.98; P < .001); and a twofold risk (P = .001) in adjusting for paternal levels. “Couple-based analyses confirmed the results for an association between maternal preconception DEHP concentrations and increased risk of preterm birth,” the investigators said.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating couples’ exposure to phthalate metabolites during the preconception window and its association with preterm birth,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings support a novel hypothesis: Maternal phthalate exposure during the critical period before conception may be associated with shorter gestation.”

“This study is consistent with several, but not all, prior studies supporting maternal prenatal exposure to phthalates increase preterm birth,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. “The uniqueness of the current study was the assessment of couples’ exposures and the outcome, though paternal exposure to phthalates did not demonstrate a significant association.”

Dr. Trolice noted that about 25% of women in the study were smokers, but the study didn’t adjust for tobacco use and phthalate exposure, and 85% of the women were white. He urged caution in applying the study results in practice, adding that the study didn’t adjust for method of conception. “Assisted reproductive technology, multiple gestation, and advanced age are all known risk factors for preterm birth,”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Science funded the study. Two study coauthors received grants from the NIEHS, one coauthor received grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one received a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Trolice has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Zhang Y et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2159.

Maternal preconception exposure to phthalates was associated with increased risk of preterm birth, according to a study of 420 births to subfertile couples over a 13-year period.

Previous studies have shown increased risk of preterm birth associated with prenatal exposure to phthalates, which are commonly found in a range of household and commercial products as well as medical equipment and some pharmaceuticals.

“Our results suggest that female exposure to [4 di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate] DEHP before conception might be an unrecognized risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, often overlooked in clinical practice,” wrote Yu Zhang of the department of environmental health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

The prospective cohort study evaluated preconception urinary levels of phthalates and phthalate substitutes in 419 women and 229 men participating in the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study, a cohort of couples seeking fertility care at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center. The study cohort gave birth during 2005-2018. The average gestational age of the 420 singleton children born to this cohort was 39 weeks, with 8% (n = 34) born preterm.

Adjusted models showed that maternal preconception urinary concentrations of phthalates and of cyclohexane-1, 2-dicarboxylic acid monohydroxy isononyl ester (MHiNCH), a metabolite of a nonphthalate plasticizer substitute, were associated with a 50% and 70% increased risk of preterm birth, respectively (P = .01, .11), according to results published in JAMA Network Open .

Sensitivity analysis showed that maternal preconception MHiNCH concentrations above the median were associated with a fourfold increased risk of preterm birth (risk ratio, 4.02; P = .08), Maternal preconception MHiNCH concentrations were associated with an average 2-day reduction in gestational age (P = .02).

Covariate-adjusted models found that paternal urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations were associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (RR, 1.41; P = .09), but this association was attenuated toward zero (RR, 1.06) in models that accounted for maternal preconception phthalate concentrations. Sensitivity analysis of 228 couples found the associations of maternal preconception phthalate metabolite concentrations and preterm birth remained robust in three different models: a twofold increased risk in covariate-adjusted models (P < .001); an almost fivefold increased risk in adjusting for prenatal levels (RR, 4.98; P < .001); and a twofold risk (P = .001) in adjusting for paternal levels. “Couple-based analyses confirmed the results for an association between maternal preconception DEHP concentrations and increased risk of preterm birth,” the investigators said.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating couples’ exposure to phthalate metabolites during the preconception window and its association with preterm birth,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings support a novel hypothesis: Maternal phthalate exposure during the critical period before conception may be associated with shorter gestation.”

“This study is consistent with several, but not all, prior studies supporting maternal prenatal exposure to phthalates increase preterm birth,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. “The uniqueness of the current study was the assessment of couples’ exposures and the outcome, though paternal exposure to phthalates did not demonstrate a significant association.”

Dr. Trolice noted that about 25% of women in the study were smokers, but the study didn’t adjust for tobacco use and phthalate exposure, and 85% of the women were white. He urged caution in applying the study results in practice, adding that the study didn’t adjust for method of conception. “Assisted reproductive technology, multiple gestation, and advanced age are all known risk factors for preterm birth,”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Science funded the study. Two study coauthors received grants from the NIEHS, one coauthor received grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one received a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Trolice has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Zhang Y et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2159.

It is often said that a crisis brings out the best and worst in people, and I think we are definitely seeing that when it comes to the responses to reproductive health, family planning, and abortion care during this global pandemic.

Many national and international organizations have published strong statements of support for the importance of continuing reproductive health services. These organizations include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society of Family Planning, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Society of Family Planning, American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the Ethiopian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They state the obvious, which is that abortion is a time-sensitive procedure, and it cannot be delayed until the end of this COVID-19 pandemic.

We do not have complete knowledge of what the novel coronavirus 2019 does to a developing pregnancy, especially early in pregnancy. Many people who are struggling with all the uncertainty of this time – job, health, housing, food, school – may decide it is not the best moment to be adding to their family.

These concerns apply as well to the need to maintain and prioritize contraceptive services. Stay-at-home orders have put people in close quarters for long periods of time, and we are already getting reports of increased sexual intercourse, as well as increased sexual violence, both of which could result in a need for abortion if contraception is not accessible. Additionally, many women are expressing a concern for whether they will still have a job or have a job again when this first wave of the crisis passes, so they are wanting to access contraception now when they can afford to do so.

I was personally very proud of and grateful to Barbara A. Goff, MD, the chair of my department at the University of Washington, Seattle, for stating clearly in the first email she sent to faculty about canceling elective procedures and visits that family planning and abortion is not elective. My heart goes out to my colleagues and the patients who are in states that are using this opportunity to act poorly and use COVID-19 as another excuse to legislate against abortion and contraception. It demonstrates horrifying gender discrimination during a time when we should really be focusing on keeping everyone healthy.

I predict there will be an increase in the numbers of abortions after this crisis ebbs, and an increase in the numbers of term deliveries. The time to influence that is now.

Dr. Prager is professor of obstetrics and gynecology, chief of the family planning division, and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of Washington, Seattle. She also is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at St. Paul’s Hospital and Millennium Medical College in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dr. Prager is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Prager at [email protected].