MDedge Psychiatry

A history of suicidal behaviors or ideation, functional impairment related to mental health disorders, and socioeconomic disadvantage are the three most important risk factors predicting subsequent suicide attempts, new research suggests.

Investigators applied a machine-learning model to data on over 34,500 adults drawn from a large national survey database. After analyzing more than 2,500 survey questions, key areas were identified that yielded the most accurate predictions of who might be at risk for later suicide attempt.

‘Rich’ dataset

Previous research using machine learning approaches to study nonfatal suicide attempt prediction has focused on high-risk patients in clinical treatment. However, more than one-third of individuals making nonfatal suicide attempts do not receive mental health treatment, Mr. Garcia de la Garza noted.

To gain further insight into predictors of suicide risk in nonclinical populations, the researchers turned to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a longitudinal survey of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults.

“We wanted to extend our understanding of suicide attempt risk factors beyond high-risk clinical populations to the general adult population; and the richness of the NESARC dataset provides a unique opportunity to do so,” Mr. Garcia de la Garza said.

The NESARC surveys were conducted in two waves: Wave 1 (2001-2002) and wave 2 (2004-2005), in which participants self-reported nonfatal suicide attempts in the preceding 3 years since wave 1.

Assessment of wave 1 participants was based on the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule DSM-IV.

“This survey’s extensive assessment instrument contained a detailed evaluation of substance use, psychiatric disorders, and symptoms not routinely available in electronic health records,” Mr. Garcia de la Garza noted.

The wave 1 survey contained 2,805 separate questions. From participants’ responses, the investigators derived 180 variables for three categories: past-year, prior-to-past-year, and lifetime mental disorders.

They then identified 2,978 factors associated with suicide attempts and used a statistical method called balanced random forest to classify suicide attempts at wave 2. Each variable was accorded an “importance score” using identified wave 1 features.

The outcome variable of attempted suicide at any point during the 3 years prior to the wave 2 interview was defined by combining responses to three wave 2 questions:

• In your entire life, did you ever attempt suicide?
• If yes, how old were you the first time?
• If the most recent event occurred within the last 3 years, how old were you during the most recent time?

Suicide risk severity was classified into four groups (low, medium, high, and very high) on the basis of the top-performing risk factors.

A statistical model combining survey design and nonresponse weights enabled estimates to be representative of the U.S. population, based on the 2000 census.

Out-of-fold model prediction assessed performance of the model, using area under receiver operator curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity.
 

Daily functioning

Of all participants, 70.2% (n = 34,653; almost 60% women) completed wave 2 interviews. The weighted mean ages at waves 1 and 2 were 45.1 and 48.2 years, respectively.

Of wave 2 respondents, 0.6% (n = 222) attempted suicide during the preceding 3 years.

Half of those who attempted suicide within the first year were classified as “very high risk,” while 33.2% of those who attempted suicide between the first and second year and 33.3% of those who attempted suicide between the second and third year were classified as “very high risk.”

Among participants who attempted suicide between the third year and follow-up, 16.48% were classified as “very high risk.”

The model accurately captured classification of participants, even across demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race, and income.

Younger individuals (aged 18-36 years) were at higher risk, compared with older individuals. In addition, women were at higher risk than were men, White participants were at higher risk than were non-White participants, and individuals with lower income were at greater risk than were those with higher income.

The model found that 1.8% of the U.S. population had a 10% or greater risk of a suicide attempt.

The most important risk factors identified were the three questions about previous suicidal ideation or behavior; three items from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (feeling downhearted, doing activities less carefully, or accomplishing less because of emotional problems); younger age; lower educational achievement; and recent financial crisis.

“The clinical assessment of suicide risk typically focuses on acute suicidal symptoms, together with depression, anxiety, substance misuse, and recent stressful events,” coinvestigator Mark Olfson, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“The new findings suggest that these assessments should also consider emotional problems that interfere with daily functioning,” Dr. Olfson said.
 

Extra vigilance

Commenting on the study in an interview, April C. Foreman, PhD, an executive board member of the American Association of Suicidology, noted that some of the findings were not surprising.

“When discharging a patient from inpatient care, or seeing them in primary care, bring up mental health concerns proactively and ask whether they have ever attempted suicide or harmed themselves – even a long time ago – just as you ask about a family history of heart disease or cancer, or other health issues,” said Dr. Foreman, chief medical officer of the Kevin and Margaret Hines Foundation.

She noted that half of people who die by suicide have a primary care visit within the preceding month.

“Primary care is a great place to get a suicide history and follow the patient with extra vigilance, just as you would with any other risk factors,” Dr. Foreman said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and its Intramural Program. The study authors and Dr. Foreman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A history of suicidal behaviors or ideation, functional impairment related to mental health disorders, and socioeconomic disadvantage are the three most important risk factors predicting subsequent suicide attempts, new research suggests.

Investigators applied a machine-learning model to data on over 34,500 adults drawn from a large national survey database. After analyzing more than 2,500 survey questions, key areas were identified that yielded the most accurate predictions of who might be at risk for later suicide attempt.

‘Rich’ dataset

Previous research using machine learning approaches to study nonfatal suicide attempt prediction has focused on high-risk patients in clinical treatment. However, more than one-third of individuals making nonfatal suicide attempts do not receive mental health treatment, Mr. Garcia de la Garza noted.

To gain further insight into predictors of suicide risk in nonclinical populations, the researchers turned to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a longitudinal survey of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults.

“We wanted to extend our understanding of suicide attempt risk factors beyond high-risk clinical populations to the general adult population; and the richness of the NESARC dataset provides a unique opportunity to do so,” Mr. Garcia de la Garza said.

The NESARC surveys were conducted in two waves: Wave 1 (2001-2002) and wave 2 (2004-2005), in which participants self-reported nonfatal suicide attempts in the preceding 3 years since wave 1.

Assessment of wave 1 participants was based on the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule DSM-IV.

“This survey’s extensive assessment instrument contained a detailed evaluation of substance use, psychiatric disorders, and symptoms not routinely available in electronic health records,” Mr. Garcia de la Garza noted.

The wave 1 survey contained 2,805 separate questions. From participants’ responses, the investigators derived 180 variables for three categories: past-year, prior-to-past-year, and lifetime mental disorders.

They then identified 2,978 factors associated with suicide attempts and used a statistical method called balanced random forest to classify suicide attempts at wave 2. Each variable was accorded an “importance score” using identified wave 1 features.

The outcome variable of attempted suicide at any point during the 3 years prior to the wave 2 interview was defined by combining responses to three wave 2 questions:

• In your entire life, did you ever attempt suicide?
• If yes, how old were you the first time?
• If the most recent event occurred within the last 3 years, how old were you during the most recent time?

Suicide risk severity was classified into four groups (low, medium, high, and very high) on the basis of the top-performing risk factors.

A statistical model combining survey design and nonresponse weights enabled estimates to be representative of the U.S. population, based on the 2000 census.

Out-of-fold model prediction assessed performance of the model, using area under receiver operator curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity.
 

Daily functioning

Of all participants, 70.2% (n = 34,653; almost 60% women) completed wave 2 interviews. The weighted mean ages at waves 1 and 2 were 45.1 and 48.2 years, respectively.

Of wave 2 respondents, 0.6% (n = 222) attempted suicide during the preceding 3 years.

Half of those who attempted suicide within the first year were classified as “very high risk,” while 33.2% of those who attempted suicide between the first and second year and 33.3% of those who attempted suicide between the second and third year were classified as “very high risk.”

Among participants who attempted suicide between the third year and follow-up, 16.48% were classified as “very high risk.”

The model accurately captured classification of participants, even across demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race, and income.

Younger individuals (aged 18-36 years) were at higher risk, compared with older individuals. In addition, women were at higher risk than were men, White participants were at higher risk than were non-White participants, and individuals with lower income were at greater risk than were those with higher income.

The model found that 1.8% of the U.S. population had a 10% or greater risk of a suicide attempt.

The most important risk factors identified were the three questions about previous suicidal ideation or behavior; three items from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (feeling downhearted, doing activities less carefully, or accomplishing less because of emotional problems); younger age; lower educational achievement; and recent financial crisis.

“The clinical assessment of suicide risk typically focuses on acute suicidal symptoms, together with depression, anxiety, substance misuse, and recent stressful events,” coinvestigator Mark Olfson, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“The new findings suggest that these assessments should also consider emotional problems that interfere with daily functioning,” Dr. Olfson said.
 

Extra vigilance

Commenting on the study in an interview, April C. Foreman, PhD, an executive board member of the American Association of Suicidology, noted that some of the findings were not surprising.

“When discharging a patient from inpatient care, or seeing them in primary care, bring up mental health concerns proactively and ask whether they have ever attempted suicide or harmed themselves – even a long time ago – just as you ask about a family history of heart disease or cancer, or other health issues,” said Dr. Foreman, chief medical officer of the Kevin and Margaret Hines Foundation.

She noted that half of people who die by suicide have a primary care visit within the preceding month.

“Primary care is a great place to get a suicide history and follow the patient with extra vigilance, just as you would with any other risk factors,” Dr. Foreman said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and its Intramural Program. The study authors and Dr. Foreman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A history of suicidal behaviors or ideation, functional impairment related to mental health disorders, and socioeconomic disadvantage are the three most important risk factors predicting subsequent suicide attempts, new research suggests.

Investigators applied a machine-learning model to data on over 34,500 adults drawn from a large national survey database. After analyzing more than 2,500 survey questions, key areas were identified that yielded the most accurate predictions of who might be at risk for later suicide attempt.

‘Rich’ dataset

Previous research using machine learning approaches to study nonfatal suicide attempt prediction has focused on high-risk patients in clinical treatment. However, more than one-third of individuals making nonfatal suicide attempts do not receive mental health treatment, Mr. Garcia de la Garza noted.

To gain further insight into predictors of suicide risk in nonclinical populations, the researchers turned to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a longitudinal survey of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults.

“We wanted to extend our understanding of suicide attempt risk factors beyond high-risk clinical populations to the general adult population; and the richness of the NESARC dataset provides a unique opportunity to do so,” Mr. Garcia de la Garza said.

The NESARC surveys were conducted in two waves: Wave 1 (2001-2002) and wave 2 (2004-2005), in which participants self-reported nonfatal suicide attempts in the preceding 3 years since wave 1.

Assessment of wave 1 participants was based on the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule DSM-IV.

“This survey’s extensive assessment instrument contained a detailed evaluation of substance use, psychiatric disorders, and symptoms not routinely available in electronic health records,” Mr. Garcia de la Garza noted.

The wave 1 survey contained 2,805 separate questions. From participants’ responses, the investigators derived 180 variables for three categories: past-year, prior-to-past-year, and lifetime mental disorders.

They then identified 2,978 factors associated with suicide attempts and used a statistical method called balanced random forest to classify suicide attempts at wave 2. Each variable was accorded an “importance score” using identified wave 1 features.

The outcome variable of attempted suicide at any point during the 3 years prior to the wave 2 interview was defined by combining responses to three wave 2 questions:

• In your entire life, did you ever attempt suicide?
• If yes, how old were you the first time?
• If the most recent event occurred within the last 3 years, how old were you during the most recent time?

Suicide risk severity was classified into four groups (low, medium, high, and very high) on the basis of the top-performing risk factors.

A statistical model combining survey design and nonresponse weights enabled estimates to be representative of the U.S. population, based on the 2000 census.

Out-of-fold model prediction assessed performance of the model, using area under receiver operator curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity.
 

Daily functioning

Of all participants, 70.2% (n = 34,653; almost 60% women) completed wave 2 interviews. The weighted mean ages at waves 1 and 2 were 45.1 and 48.2 years, respectively.

Of wave 2 respondents, 0.6% (n = 222) attempted suicide during the preceding 3 years.

Half of those who attempted suicide within the first year were classified as “very high risk,” while 33.2% of those who attempted suicide between the first and second year and 33.3% of those who attempted suicide between the second and third year were classified as “very high risk.”

Among participants who attempted suicide between the third year and follow-up, 16.48% were classified as “very high risk.”

The model accurately captured classification of participants, even across demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race, and income.

Younger individuals (aged 18-36 years) were at higher risk, compared with older individuals. In addition, women were at higher risk than were men, White participants were at higher risk than were non-White participants, and individuals with lower income were at greater risk than were those with higher income.

The model found that 1.8% of the U.S. population had a 10% or greater risk of a suicide attempt.

The most important risk factors identified were the three questions about previous suicidal ideation or behavior; three items from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (feeling downhearted, doing activities less carefully, or accomplishing less because of emotional problems); younger age; lower educational achievement; and recent financial crisis.

“The clinical assessment of suicide risk typically focuses on acute suicidal symptoms, together with depression, anxiety, substance misuse, and recent stressful events,” coinvestigator Mark Olfson, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“The new findings suggest that these assessments should also consider emotional problems that interfere with daily functioning,” Dr. Olfson said.
 

Extra vigilance

Commenting on the study in an interview, April C. Foreman, PhD, an executive board member of the American Association of Suicidology, noted that some of the findings were not surprising.

“When discharging a patient from inpatient care, or seeing them in primary care, bring up mental health concerns proactively and ask whether they have ever attempted suicide or harmed themselves – even a long time ago – just as you ask about a family history of heart disease or cancer, or other health issues,” said Dr. Foreman, chief medical officer of the Kevin and Margaret Hines Foundation.

She noted that half of people who die by suicide have a primary care visit within the preceding month.

“Primary care is a great place to get a suicide history and follow the patient with extra vigilance, just as you would with any other risk factors,” Dr. Foreman said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and its Intramural Program. The study authors and Dr. Foreman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mia McDermott is no stranger to isolation. Abandoned as an infant in China, she lived in an orphanage until a family in California adopted her as a toddler. She spent her adolescence in boarding schools and early adult years in and out of psychiatric hospitals, where she underwent treatment for bipolar disorder, anxiety, and anorexia.

The pandemic left Ms. McDermott feeling especially lonely. She restricted social interactions because her fatty liver disease put her at greater risk of complications should she contract COVID-19. The 26-year-old Santa Cruz, Calif., resident stopped regularly eating and taking her psychiatric medications, and contemplated suicide.

When Ms. McDermott’s thoughts grew increasingly dark in June, she checked into Second Story, a mental health program based in a home not far from her own, where she finds nonclinical support in a peaceful environment from people who have faced similar challenges.

Second Story is what is known as a “peer respite,” a welcoming place where people can stay when they’re experiencing or nearing a mental health crisis. Betting that a low-key wellness approach, coupled with empathy from people who have “been there,” can help people in distress recover, this unorthodox strategy has gained popularity in recent years as the nation grapples with a severe shortage of psychiatric beds that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Peer respites allow guests to avoid psychiatric hospitalization and ED visits. They now operate in at least 14 states. California has five, in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County.

“When things are really tough and you need extra support but you don’t need hospitalization, where’s that middle ground?” asked Keris Myrick, founder of Hacienda of Hope, a peer respite in Long Beach, Calif.

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

Mia McDermott is no stranger to isolation. Abandoned as an infant in China, she lived in an orphanage until a family in California adopted her as a toddler. She spent her adolescence in boarding schools and early adult years in and out of psychiatric hospitals, where she underwent treatment for bipolar disorder, anxiety, and anorexia.

The pandemic left Ms. McDermott feeling especially lonely. She restricted social interactions because her fatty liver disease put her at greater risk of complications should she contract COVID-19. The 26-year-old Santa Cruz, Calif., resident stopped regularly eating and taking her psychiatric medications, and contemplated suicide.

When Ms. McDermott’s thoughts grew increasingly dark in June, she checked into Second Story, a mental health program based in a home not far from her own, where she finds nonclinical support in a peaceful environment from people who have faced similar challenges.

Second Story is what is known as a “peer respite,” a welcoming place where people can stay when they’re experiencing or nearing a mental health crisis. Betting that a low-key wellness approach, coupled with empathy from people who have “been there,” can help people in distress recover, this unorthodox strategy has gained popularity in recent years as the nation grapples with a severe shortage of psychiatric beds that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Peer respites allow guests to avoid psychiatric hospitalization and ED visits. They now operate in at least 14 states. California has five, in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County.

“When things are really tough and you need extra support but you don’t need hospitalization, where’s that middle ground?” asked Keris Myrick, founder of Hacienda of Hope, a peer respite in Long Beach, Calif.

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

Mia McDermott is no stranger to isolation. Abandoned as an infant in China, she lived in an orphanage until a family in California adopted her as a toddler. She spent her adolescence in boarding schools and early adult years in and out of psychiatric hospitals, where she underwent treatment for bipolar disorder, anxiety, and anorexia.

The pandemic left Ms. McDermott feeling especially lonely. She restricted social interactions because her fatty liver disease put her at greater risk of complications should she contract COVID-19. The 26-year-old Santa Cruz, Calif., resident stopped regularly eating and taking her psychiatric medications, and contemplated suicide.

When Ms. McDermott’s thoughts grew increasingly dark in June, she checked into Second Story, a mental health program based in a home not far from her own, where she finds nonclinical support in a peaceful environment from people who have faced similar challenges.

Second Story is what is known as a “peer respite,” a welcoming place where people can stay when they’re experiencing or nearing a mental health crisis. Betting that a low-key wellness approach, coupled with empathy from people who have “been there,” can help people in distress recover, this unorthodox strategy has gained popularity in recent years as the nation grapples with a severe shortage of psychiatric beds that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Peer respites allow guests to avoid psychiatric hospitalization and ED visits. They now operate in at least 14 states. California has five, in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County.

“When things are really tough and you need extra support but you don’t need hospitalization, where’s that middle ground?” asked Keris Myrick, founder of Hacienda of Hope, a peer respite in Long Beach, Calif.

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

Physicians unaffiliated with health care systems continue to have difficulties obtaining COVID-19 vaccinations for themselves and their staffs, but that challenge appears to be fading in some states. Yet, in many places, primary care physicians (PCPs) still aren’t being enlisted in the national vaccination effort, despite their numbers and their relationships with patients.

In the first few weeks after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received emergency-use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration, they were distributed mostly to hospitals, pharmacies, and long-term care facilities. Naturally, the hospitals and health care systems vaccinated their own staffs and employed physicians first.

So, even though the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specify that all frontline health care workers should be included in the first vaccination group, many non–hospital-affiliated private practices have been left out in the cold. Non–patient-facing hospital staff members in some facilities, as well as first responders such as police officers and firefighters, have taken precedence over independent primary care physicians.

In Florida, residents older than 65 years were invited to get vaccinated before some physicians had received shots, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, said in an interview.

While the Department of Health & Human Services is now telling states to give vaccinations to everyone over 65, that wasn’t the case back then.

Community doctors in some areas are still finding it hard to get vaccinated or even find out how to get shots. Yul Ejnes, MD, an internist and partner in Coastal Medical, an independent medical group based in Cranston, R.I., said in an interview that he and his practice staff haven’t been vaccinated, while the staffs of local hospitals have received their shots.

In response to repeated inquiries from his group, he said, the state health department recently said independent practice staffs will start getting vaccinated the week of Jan. 25.

Dr. Ejnes said he understood why hospital personnel went first: Hospitals have the necessary infrastructure, “and the staff in the emergency department and the ICU are caring for the sickest of the sick.”

For primary care doctors like himself who don’t work for the hospital, he said, “I don’t think an infrastructure to get us the vaccine in a timely manner was developed – or if it was developed, it hasn’t been communicated to us.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Ejnes stressed that primary care physicians in the community are just as vulnerable to the coronavirus as hospital clinicians. “We’re seeing patients who have COVID but don’t know they have it. I’m seeing 15 patients a day, and we screen them – as everyone else does – for symptoms and contact and travel, and check their temp,” he said. “But not a day goes by that one of the clinicians in this office doesn’t get a phone call from a patient who was seen a day or 2 earlier to tell them it turns out they were COVID positive. I’m spending 15 minutes in a 100–sq ft room with a patient for a routine visit. And as much as we’re masking and gloving and wearing eye protection, I wouldn’t consider us to be at low risk, especially with the high prevalence of disease.”

In some other states, the situation seems to be improving. Ada Stewart, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that she and her colleagues in a community health center in Columbia, S.C., are in the process of being vaccinated. She got her own shot Jan. 6 at a local hospital.

Her clinic’s staff hadn’t been vaccinated earlier, she said, because nobody in the practice knew the contact person at the hospital who could help access the vaccine doses. Other independent practices in her state are now getting vaccinated, she said, after Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina ordered that all health care providers in the top priority category be inoculated by Jan. 15. “At this point, the issues have been diminished.”

However, Dr. Stewart added, independent doctors in some states are still unable to get their shots. AAFP state chapters, as well as the national organization, are trying to persuade governors to ensure all of these physicians are vaccinated. “We’re trying to make sure that the voices of physicians not affiliated with health systems are being heard,” she said.
 

Lucky shot for doctor

David Boles, DO, a family doctor in Clarksville, Tenn., was able to get his first dose of vaccine just before Christmas, he said in an interview, because he was medical director of a hospice that had received vaccine doses for first responders. When some firefighters and police officers failed to show up for their appointments, the hospice called him and said he had 45 minutes to get to the site if he wanted to be vaccinated.

In early January, his colleagues and staff were also vaccinated, he said, after they were notified of their eligibility as frontline health care workers.

Dr. Boles agreed with Dr. Ejnes that community physicians and nurses are as much at risk as hospital clinicians, except for those intubating patients in the ICU. They may be even more vulnerable, he added, because they have less personal protective equipment than hospital doctors and nurses.

Jennifer Brull, MD, a family physician in Plainville, Kan., said there have been plenty of COVID-19 cases in her small rural community, and the local critical access hospital nearly ran out of beds at one point. Through a collaborative relationship among her clinic (the lone one in the area), the hospital, and the county health department, nearly every frontline health care worker has been vaccinated, and most clinicians in her group have gotten their second doses.

Both the hospital and the health department received vaccine supplies, she said, and everyone in the high-priority category was offered shots. So far, about 170 health care workers have been vaccinated, and only a few declined. More than 300 other people – most of them essential non–health care workers and people older than 65 – have signed up for the next round of shots.
 

Expanding vaccination effort

Dr. Brull’s practice is the exception among private medical groups around the country. Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA is “concerned that independent practices are playing second fiddle because they’ve been left behind.” Physicians and patient-facing staff in private groups should be getting vaccinated before hospital information technology workers and other non–patient-facing staffers.

Medical practices also can and should play a much bigger role in the overall vaccination effort. Mr. Gilberg has spoken to leaders of several large primary care groups “that have the freezers [for vaccines] and the capacity but haven’t been folded into the distribution plan, especially if they’re not part of the hospital system.”

While hospitals have the storage, he said, they’re not set up to distribute vaccines throughout their communities. “Most health care in this country is delivered outside of the hospital setting. That’s how you’re going to get people vaccinated.”

Ironically, he added, “the same PCPs that are having trouble getting themselves and their staffs vaccinated would be the physicians who could help with vaccine distribution.”

Dr. Brull’s clinic stands ready to help the hospital and health department vaccinate the local population. When sufficient vaccine supplies arrive, she said, she envisioned the doctors and staff administering 200-400 shots per day on Saturdays or weekends.

Dr. Brull was the exception – the other physicians interviewed hadn’t been invited to participate in vaccination efforts.

Dr. Ejnes said his group is capable of vaccinating its patients if it uses the Moderna vaccine, which doesn’t require a super-cold freezer. There are logistical challenges, including social distancing and finding space to observe vaccinated patients for 15 minutes after their shots, he noted. “We’re ready and willing, but realistic about how much we’ll be able to do in this effort.”

The fact that doctors haven’t been enlisted yet in this campaign speaks volumes about “the neglect of the public health infrastructure,” Dr. Ejnes said. “We’re not mobilizing as quickly as we should.”
 

Alternative routes

Dr. Boles’ group has a refrigerator for pediatric vaccines, which could be used to store the Moderna vaccine, he noted. Shots could be administered to patients in their cars in the parking lot, and they could wait for a while afterward until a nurse came out to verify they were okay.

Mass vaccination sites might also be deployed, as Los Angeles is doing with Dodger Stadium, and physicians could take shifts there in their spare time, Dr. Boles said. But for right now, he views pharmacies as the primary venues for community vaccination.

Of course, the number of pharmacists and pharmacy-employed advanced practice nurses is tiny, compared with the number of primary care doctors, mid-level practitioners, and nurses in ambulatory care practices. Moreover, Mr. Gilberg said, practices know from their electronic health records which patients are most at risk and should be vaccinated first. “Walgreens and CVS don’t know that.”

Physicians should also take the lead in vaccinations because of their patient relationships, he noted. “They can help educate [vaccine-hesitant] patients on why it’s important and dispel some of the rumors and the misinformation that has been politicized. That’s why we should engage physicians in an outpatient setting. And we have to vaccinate them and their staffs. Otherwise, we’re never going to get this rollout underway.”

Dr. Stewart agreed. “We are really the foundation of how we’re going to accomplish this. Most folks are seen by a primary care physician. We touch millions of lives,” she said. “We’re part of the community. Our patients trust us. We’re out there doing it already. We’re doing prevention, giving flu shots, and we’re trying to encourage people to get the COVID vaccine.”

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

Physicians unaffiliated with health care systems continue to have difficulties obtaining COVID-19 vaccinations for themselves and their staffs, but that challenge appears to be fading in some states. Yet, in many places, primary care physicians (PCPs) still aren’t being enlisted in the national vaccination effort, despite their numbers and their relationships with patients.

In the first few weeks after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received emergency-use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration, they were distributed mostly to hospitals, pharmacies, and long-term care facilities. Naturally, the hospitals and health care systems vaccinated their own staffs and employed physicians first.

So, even though the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specify that all frontline health care workers should be included in the first vaccination group, many non–hospital-affiliated private practices have been left out in the cold. Non–patient-facing hospital staff members in some facilities, as well as first responders such as police officers and firefighters, have taken precedence over independent primary care physicians.

In Florida, residents older than 65 years were invited to get vaccinated before some physicians had received shots, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, said in an interview.

While the Department of Health & Human Services is now telling states to give vaccinations to everyone over 65, that wasn’t the case back then.

Community doctors in some areas are still finding it hard to get vaccinated or even find out how to get shots. Yul Ejnes, MD, an internist and partner in Coastal Medical, an independent medical group based in Cranston, R.I., said in an interview that he and his practice staff haven’t been vaccinated, while the staffs of local hospitals have received their shots.

In response to repeated inquiries from his group, he said, the state health department recently said independent practice staffs will start getting vaccinated the week of Jan. 25.

Dr. Ejnes said he understood why hospital personnel went first: Hospitals have the necessary infrastructure, “and the staff in the emergency department and the ICU are caring for the sickest of the sick.”

For primary care doctors like himself who don’t work for the hospital, he said, “I don’t think an infrastructure to get us the vaccine in a timely manner was developed – or if it was developed, it hasn’t been communicated to us.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Ejnes stressed that primary care physicians in the community are just as vulnerable to the coronavirus as hospital clinicians. “We’re seeing patients who have COVID but don’t know they have it. I’m seeing 15 patients a day, and we screen them – as everyone else does – for symptoms and contact and travel, and check their temp,” he said. “But not a day goes by that one of the clinicians in this office doesn’t get a phone call from a patient who was seen a day or 2 earlier to tell them it turns out they were COVID positive. I’m spending 15 minutes in a 100–sq ft room with a patient for a routine visit. And as much as we’re masking and gloving and wearing eye protection, I wouldn’t consider us to be at low risk, especially with the high prevalence of disease.”

In some other states, the situation seems to be improving. Ada Stewart, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that she and her colleagues in a community health center in Columbia, S.C., are in the process of being vaccinated. She got her own shot Jan. 6 at a local hospital.

Her clinic’s staff hadn’t been vaccinated earlier, she said, because nobody in the practice knew the contact person at the hospital who could help access the vaccine doses. Other independent practices in her state are now getting vaccinated, she said, after Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina ordered that all health care providers in the top priority category be inoculated by Jan. 15. “At this point, the issues have been diminished.”

However, Dr. Stewart added, independent doctors in some states are still unable to get their shots. AAFP state chapters, as well as the national organization, are trying to persuade governors to ensure all of these physicians are vaccinated. “We’re trying to make sure that the voices of physicians not affiliated with health systems are being heard,” she said.
 

Lucky shot for doctor

David Boles, DO, a family doctor in Clarksville, Tenn., was able to get his first dose of vaccine just before Christmas, he said in an interview, because he was medical director of a hospice that had received vaccine doses for first responders. When some firefighters and police officers failed to show up for their appointments, the hospice called him and said he had 45 minutes to get to the site if he wanted to be vaccinated.

In early January, his colleagues and staff were also vaccinated, he said, after they were notified of their eligibility as frontline health care workers.

Dr. Boles agreed with Dr. Ejnes that community physicians and nurses are as much at risk as hospital clinicians, except for those intubating patients in the ICU. They may be even more vulnerable, he added, because they have less personal protective equipment than hospital doctors and nurses.

Jennifer Brull, MD, a family physician in Plainville, Kan., said there have been plenty of COVID-19 cases in her small rural community, and the local critical access hospital nearly ran out of beds at one point. Through a collaborative relationship among her clinic (the lone one in the area), the hospital, and the county health department, nearly every frontline health care worker has been vaccinated, and most clinicians in her group have gotten their second doses.

Both the hospital and the health department received vaccine supplies, she said, and everyone in the high-priority category was offered shots. So far, about 170 health care workers have been vaccinated, and only a few declined. More than 300 other people – most of them essential non–health care workers and people older than 65 – have signed up for the next round of shots.
 

Expanding vaccination effort

Dr. Brull’s practice is the exception among private medical groups around the country. Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA is “concerned that independent practices are playing second fiddle because they’ve been left behind.” Physicians and patient-facing staff in private groups should be getting vaccinated before hospital information technology workers and other non–patient-facing staffers.

Medical practices also can and should play a much bigger role in the overall vaccination effort. Mr. Gilberg has spoken to leaders of several large primary care groups “that have the freezers [for vaccines] and the capacity but haven’t been folded into the distribution plan, especially if they’re not part of the hospital system.”

While hospitals have the storage, he said, they’re not set up to distribute vaccines throughout their communities. “Most health care in this country is delivered outside of the hospital setting. That’s how you’re going to get people vaccinated.”

Ironically, he added, “the same PCPs that are having trouble getting themselves and their staffs vaccinated would be the physicians who could help with vaccine distribution.”

Dr. Brull’s clinic stands ready to help the hospital and health department vaccinate the local population. When sufficient vaccine supplies arrive, she said, she envisioned the doctors and staff administering 200-400 shots per day on Saturdays or weekends.

Dr. Brull was the exception – the other physicians interviewed hadn’t been invited to participate in vaccination efforts.

Dr. Ejnes said his group is capable of vaccinating its patients if it uses the Moderna vaccine, which doesn’t require a super-cold freezer. There are logistical challenges, including social distancing and finding space to observe vaccinated patients for 15 minutes after their shots, he noted. “We’re ready and willing, but realistic about how much we’ll be able to do in this effort.”

The fact that doctors haven’t been enlisted yet in this campaign speaks volumes about “the neglect of the public health infrastructure,” Dr. Ejnes said. “We’re not mobilizing as quickly as we should.”
 

Alternative routes

Dr. Boles’ group has a refrigerator for pediatric vaccines, which could be used to store the Moderna vaccine, he noted. Shots could be administered to patients in their cars in the parking lot, and they could wait for a while afterward until a nurse came out to verify they were okay.

Mass vaccination sites might also be deployed, as Los Angeles is doing with Dodger Stadium, and physicians could take shifts there in their spare time, Dr. Boles said. But for right now, he views pharmacies as the primary venues for community vaccination.

Of course, the number of pharmacists and pharmacy-employed advanced practice nurses is tiny, compared with the number of primary care doctors, mid-level practitioners, and nurses in ambulatory care practices. Moreover, Mr. Gilberg said, practices know from their electronic health records which patients are most at risk and should be vaccinated first. “Walgreens and CVS don’t know that.”

Physicians should also take the lead in vaccinations because of their patient relationships, he noted. “They can help educate [vaccine-hesitant] patients on why it’s important and dispel some of the rumors and the misinformation that has been politicized. That’s why we should engage physicians in an outpatient setting. And we have to vaccinate them and their staffs. Otherwise, we’re never going to get this rollout underway.”

Dr. Stewart agreed. “We are really the foundation of how we’re going to accomplish this. Most folks are seen by a primary care physician. We touch millions of lives,” she said. “We’re part of the community. Our patients trust us. We’re out there doing it already. We’re doing prevention, giving flu shots, and we’re trying to encourage people to get the COVID vaccine.”

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

Physicians unaffiliated with health care systems continue to have difficulties obtaining COVID-19 vaccinations for themselves and their staffs, but that challenge appears to be fading in some states. Yet, in many places, primary care physicians (PCPs) still aren’t being enlisted in the national vaccination effort, despite their numbers and their relationships with patients.

In the first few weeks after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received emergency-use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration, they were distributed mostly to hospitals, pharmacies, and long-term care facilities. Naturally, the hospitals and health care systems vaccinated their own staffs and employed physicians first.

So, even though the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specify that all frontline health care workers should be included in the first vaccination group, many non–hospital-affiliated private practices have been left out in the cold. Non–patient-facing hospital staff members in some facilities, as well as first responders such as police officers and firefighters, have taken precedence over independent primary care physicians.

In Florida, residents older than 65 years were invited to get vaccinated before some physicians had received shots, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, said in an interview.

While the Department of Health & Human Services is now telling states to give vaccinations to everyone over 65, that wasn’t the case back then.

Community doctors in some areas are still finding it hard to get vaccinated or even find out how to get shots. Yul Ejnes, MD, an internist and partner in Coastal Medical, an independent medical group based in Cranston, R.I., said in an interview that he and his practice staff haven’t been vaccinated, while the staffs of local hospitals have received their shots.

In response to repeated inquiries from his group, he said, the state health department recently said independent practice staffs will start getting vaccinated the week of Jan. 25.

Dr. Ejnes said he understood why hospital personnel went first: Hospitals have the necessary infrastructure, “and the staff in the emergency department and the ICU are caring for the sickest of the sick.”

For primary care doctors like himself who don’t work for the hospital, he said, “I don’t think an infrastructure to get us the vaccine in a timely manner was developed – or if it was developed, it hasn’t been communicated to us.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Ejnes stressed that primary care physicians in the community are just as vulnerable to the coronavirus as hospital clinicians. “We’re seeing patients who have COVID but don’t know they have it. I’m seeing 15 patients a day, and we screen them – as everyone else does – for symptoms and contact and travel, and check their temp,” he said. “But not a day goes by that one of the clinicians in this office doesn’t get a phone call from a patient who was seen a day or 2 earlier to tell them it turns out they were COVID positive. I’m spending 15 minutes in a 100–sq ft room with a patient for a routine visit. And as much as we’re masking and gloving and wearing eye protection, I wouldn’t consider us to be at low risk, especially with the high prevalence of disease.”

In some other states, the situation seems to be improving. Ada Stewart, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that she and her colleagues in a community health center in Columbia, S.C., are in the process of being vaccinated. She got her own shot Jan. 6 at a local hospital.

Her clinic’s staff hadn’t been vaccinated earlier, she said, because nobody in the practice knew the contact person at the hospital who could help access the vaccine doses. Other independent practices in her state are now getting vaccinated, she said, after Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina ordered that all health care providers in the top priority category be inoculated by Jan. 15. “At this point, the issues have been diminished.”

However, Dr. Stewart added, independent doctors in some states are still unable to get their shots. AAFP state chapters, as well as the national organization, are trying to persuade governors to ensure all of these physicians are vaccinated. “We’re trying to make sure that the voices of physicians not affiliated with health systems are being heard,” she said.
 

Lucky shot for doctor

David Boles, DO, a family doctor in Clarksville, Tenn., was able to get his first dose of vaccine just before Christmas, he said in an interview, because he was medical director of a hospice that had received vaccine doses for first responders. When some firefighters and police officers failed to show up for their appointments, the hospice called him and said he had 45 minutes to get to the site if he wanted to be vaccinated.

In early January, his colleagues and staff were also vaccinated, he said, after they were notified of their eligibility as frontline health care workers.

Dr. Boles agreed with Dr. Ejnes that community physicians and nurses are as much at risk as hospital clinicians, except for those intubating patients in the ICU. They may be even more vulnerable, he added, because they have less personal protective equipment than hospital doctors and nurses.

Jennifer Brull, MD, a family physician in Plainville, Kan., said there have been plenty of COVID-19 cases in her small rural community, and the local critical access hospital nearly ran out of beds at one point. Through a collaborative relationship among her clinic (the lone one in the area), the hospital, and the county health department, nearly every frontline health care worker has been vaccinated, and most clinicians in her group have gotten their second doses.

Both the hospital and the health department received vaccine supplies, she said, and everyone in the high-priority category was offered shots. So far, about 170 health care workers have been vaccinated, and only a few declined. More than 300 other people – most of them essential non–health care workers and people older than 65 – have signed up for the next round of shots.
 

Expanding vaccination effort

Dr. Brull’s practice is the exception among private medical groups around the country. Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA is “concerned that independent practices are playing second fiddle because they’ve been left behind.” Physicians and patient-facing staff in private groups should be getting vaccinated before hospital information technology workers and other non–patient-facing staffers.

Medical practices also can and should play a much bigger role in the overall vaccination effort. Mr. Gilberg has spoken to leaders of several large primary care groups “that have the freezers [for vaccines] and the capacity but haven’t been folded into the distribution plan, especially if they’re not part of the hospital system.”

While hospitals have the storage, he said, they’re not set up to distribute vaccines throughout their communities. “Most health care in this country is delivered outside of the hospital setting. That’s how you’re going to get people vaccinated.”

Ironically, he added, “the same PCPs that are having trouble getting themselves and their staffs vaccinated would be the physicians who could help with vaccine distribution.”

Dr. Brull’s clinic stands ready to help the hospital and health department vaccinate the local population. When sufficient vaccine supplies arrive, she said, she envisioned the doctors and staff administering 200-400 shots per day on Saturdays or weekends.

Dr. Brull was the exception – the other physicians interviewed hadn’t been invited to participate in vaccination efforts.

Dr. Ejnes said his group is capable of vaccinating its patients if it uses the Moderna vaccine, which doesn’t require a super-cold freezer. There are logistical challenges, including social distancing and finding space to observe vaccinated patients for 15 minutes after their shots, he noted. “We’re ready and willing, but realistic about how much we’ll be able to do in this effort.”

The fact that doctors haven’t been enlisted yet in this campaign speaks volumes about “the neglect of the public health infrastructure,” Dr. Ejnes said. “We’re not mobilizing as quickly as we should.”
 

Alternative routes

Dr. Boles’ group has a refrigerator for pediatric vaccines, which could be used to store the Moderna vaccine, he noted. Shots could be administered to patients in their cars in the parking lot, and they could wait for a while afterward until a nurse came out to verify they were okay.

Mass vaccination sites might also be deployed, as Los Angeles is doing with Dodger Stadium, and physicians could take shifts there in their spare time, Dr. Boles said. But for right now, he views pharmacies as the primary venues for community vaccination.

Of course, the number of pharmacists and pharmacy-employed advanced practice nurses is tiny, compared with the number of primary care doctors, mid-level practitioners, and nurses in ambulatory care practices. Moreover, Mr. Gilberg said, practices know from their electronic health records which patients are most at risk and should be vaccinated first. “Walgreens and CVS don’t know that.”

Physicians should also take the lead in vaccinations because of their patient relationships, he noted. “They can help educate [vaccine-hesitant] patients on why it’s important and dispel some of the rumors and the misinformation that has been politicized. That’s why we should engage physicians in an outpatient setting. And we have to vaccinate them and their staffs. Otherwise, we’re never going to get this rollout underway.”

Dr. Stewart agreed. “We are really the foundation of how we’re going to accomplish this. Most folks are seen by a primary care physician. We touch millions of lives,” she said. “We’re part of the community. Our patients trust us. We’re out there doing it already. We’re doing prevention, giving flu shots, and we’re trying to encourage people to get the COVID vaccine.”

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

How many providers does it take to depersonalize a patient? Nine? 1. A psychiatrist for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). 2. A psychiatrist for ketamine. 3. A psychiatrist who specializes in substance use disorder medication. 4. A psychiatrist for the rest of the psychotropic medication. 5. An alternative medicine provider who prescribes supplements. 6. A therapist for depression who uses cognitive-behavioral therapy. 7. A therapist for posttraumatic stress disorder who uses eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. 8. An addiction counselor. 9. An equine therapist.

This doesn’t include other providers and professionals who likely contribute to one’s mental well-being, including yoga instructors and personal trainers. In addition, any one of those psychiatrists may have one or more nurse practitioners who routinely step in to attend to appointments.

In our uncertain and lonely times, the value of human contact and interaction has become exponentially more precious. I long to see my patients in my private practice office. I am now much more aware of their grounding effect on my life, and I suspect I had a similar grounding effect on theirs. Few things provide me more comfort than sitting on my lounge chair with a curious gaze waiting for the patient to start the visit. I often wonder what makes a patient choose to go see a private practice physician. Yet a common reason offered is, “Wait! You do everything? Therapy and meds if I need them? You’ll see me every week?”

While I am realistic about the need and use of split-care, I have never been enamored with the concept. I think that few medical students choose psychiatry with the goal of referring all psychotherapeutic needs and intervention to “allied mental health providers” as my prior managed care organization liked to refer to psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and other counselors. I remember particularly as a chief resident being bombarded by complaints of therapists complaining about psychiatry residents. All of their patients’ symptoms allegedly required medication adjustment and residents were supposedly dismissing them. In return, residents would complain that the therapists did not address the psychological manifestations of the patient’s ailments. Herein lies my problem with split-care, it encourages psychotherapy to be about medication management, and medication management to be about psychotherapy.

However, this is not an article against split-treatment. Psychiatrists, for a variety of reasons, are not suited to perform psychotherapy in most management care models. The main reason being that psychiatrists’ time is too expensive to justify the expense, and psychiatrists are (for the most part), the only ones able to prescribe medications for which the wait-list is already long enough. This article is about the absurd levels at which we have fragmented care of certain patients. Split-treatment is relevant in that its negative side effects, we are almost all familiar with, exemplify the problem of the fragmentation of modern psychiatry. In many ways this fragmentation of care is similar to polypharmacy – the premise for each psychotropic intervention may be sound, but the end result is often incoherent.

My main concern with the fragmentation of modern psychiatry stems from my belief that the most important facet of our work is our relationship with our patients. It is the duty we owe them, the attention we give them, the unique nature of interactions. Who among the nine providers is responsible for writing a discharge summary? Who is responsible for calling an emergency contact in a critical situation? Who communicates with the new provider when someone is taken off an insurance panel? Who makes the patient feel cared for? I am often confronted by this situation when TMS or ketamine providers say, “I just give the procedure/medication that was ordered by the referring psychiatrist.” This response disturbs me in that I could not imagine myself being so hands off in the care of a patient. There is an implication of projected immunity and lack of responsibility that bothers me.

But my concerns are also practical. From my forensic experience, I am well aware that the larger the number of providers treating a patient, the larger the number of inconsistent diagnoses, the more likely medication reconciliations are not kept up to date or incorrect, and the more likely intervention recommendations are contrary to one another. A disengaged ketamine provider may not realize that the patient was more recently enrolled in a substance use disorder program, a potential contraindication for ketamine, if not well-abreast of the patient’s continued evolution. A disengaged therapist may not realize that a patient appears unmotivated because of an increasing dose of medication rather than poor effort. A substance use disorder psychiatric specialist may be at odds with a substance use disorder counselor who worries about the message of treating psychiatric symptoms with chemical substances if they don’t communicate.

As with polypharmacy, “polydoctoring” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to specialize, patients still desire and benefit from an intimate and close relationship with one provider who is warm, concerned, and hopeful. Those traits can theoretically be provided by anyone and there is not something inherently wrong with having more than one provider. However, psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, especially at a time when we all feel lonely, disconnected, and depersonalized.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

How many providers does it take to depersonalize a patient? Nine? 1. A psychiatrist for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). 2. A psychiatrist for ketamine. 3. A psychiatrist who specializes in substance use disorder medication. 4. A psychiatrist for the rest of the psychotropic medication. 5. An alternative medicine provider who prescribes supplements. 6. A therapist for depression who uses cognitive-behavioral therapy. 7. A therapist for posttraumatic stress disorder who uses eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. 8. An addiction counselor. 9. An equine therapist.

This doesn’t include other providers and professionals who likely contribute to one’s mental well-being, including yoga instructors and personal trainers. In addition, any one of those psychiatrists may have one or more nurse practitioners who routinely step in to attend to appointments.

In our uncertain and lonely times, the value of human contact and interaction has become exponentially more precious. I long to see my patients in my private practice office. I am now much more aware of their grounding effect on my life, and I suspect I had a similar grounding effect on theirs. Few things provide me more comfort than sitting on my lounge chair with a curious gaze waiting for the patient to start the visit. I often wonder what makes a patient choose to go see a private practice physician. Yet a common reason offered is, “Wait! You do everything? Therapy and meds if I need them? You’ll see me every week?”

While I am realistic about the need and use of split-care, I have never been enamored with the concept. I think that few medical students choose psychiatry with the goal of referring all psychotherapeutic needs and intervention to “allied mental health providers” as my prior managed care organization liked to refer to psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and other counselors. I remember particularly as a chief resident being bombarded by complaints of therapists complaining about psychiatry residents. All of their patients’ symptoms allegedly required medication adjustment and residents were supposedly dismissing them. In return, residents would complain that the therapists did not address the psychological manifestations of the patient’s ailments. Herein lies my problem with split-care, it encourages psychotherapy to be about medication management, and medication management to be about psychotherapy.

However, this is not an article against split-treatment. Psychiatrists, for a variety of reasons, are not suited to perform psychotherapy in most management care models. The main reason being that psychiatrists’ time is too expensive to justify the expense, and psychiatrists are (for the most part), the only ones able to prescribe medications for which the wait-list is already long enough. This article is about the absurd levels at which we have fragmented care of certain patients. Split-treatment is relevant in that its negative side effects, we are almost all familiar with, exemplify the problem of the fragmentation of modern psychiatry. In many ways this fragmentation of care is similar to polypharmacy – the premise for each psychotropic intervention may be sound, but the end result is often incoherent.

My main concern with the fragmentation of modern psychiatry stems from my belief that the most important facet of our work is our relationship with our patients. It is the duty we owe them, the attention we give them, the unique nature of interactions. Who among the nine providers is responsible for writing a discharge summary? Who is responsible for calling an emergency contact in a critical situation? Who communicates with the new provider when someone is taken off an insurance panel? Who makes the patient feel cared for? I am often confronted by this situation when TMS or ketamine providers say, “I just give the procedure/medication that was ordered by the referring psychiatrist.” This response disturbs me in that I could not imagine myself being so hands off in the care of a patient. There is an implication of projected immunity and lack of responsibility that bothers me.

But my concerns are also practical. From my forensic experience, I am well aware that the larger the number of providers treating a patient, the larger the number of inconsistent diagnoses, the more likely medication reconciliations are not kept up to date or incorrect, and the more likely intervention recommendations are contrary to one another. A disengaged ketamine provider may not realize that the patient was more recently enrolled in a substance use disorder program, a potential contraindication for ketamine, if not well-abreast of the patient’s continued evolution. A disengaged therapist may not realize that a patient appears unmotivated because of an increasing dose of medication rather than poor effort. A substance use disorder psychiatric specialist may be at odds with a substance use disorder counselor who worries about the message of treating psychiatric symptoms with chemical substances if they don’t communicate.

As with polypharmacy, “polydoctoring” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to specialize, patients still desire and benefit from an intimate and close relationship with one provider who is warm, concerned, and hopeful. Those traits can theoretically be provided by anyone and there is not something inherently wrong with having more than one provider. However, psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, especially at a time when we all feel lonely, disconnected, and depersonalized.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

How many providers does it take to depersonalize a patient? Nine? 1. A psychiatrist for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). 2. A psychiatrist for ketamine. 3. A psychiatrist who specializes in substance use disorder medication. 4. A psychiatrist for the rest of the psychotropic medication. 5. An alternative medicine provider who prescribes supplements. 6. A therapist for depression who uses cognitive-behavioral therapy. 7. A therapist for posttraumatic stress disorder who uses eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. 8. An addiction counselor. 9. An equine therapist.

This doesn’t include other providers and professionals who likely contribute to one’s mental well-being, including yoga instructors and personal trainers. In addition, any one of those psychiatrists may have one or more nurse practitioners who routinely step in to attend to appointments.

In our uncertain and lonely times, the value of human contact and interaction has become exponentially more precious. I long to see my patients in my private practice office. I am now much more aware of their grounding effect on my life, and I suspect I had a similar grounding effect on theirs. Few things provide me more comfort than sitting on my lounge chair with a curious gaze waiting for the patient to start the visit. I often wonder what makes a patient choose to go see a private practice physician. Yet a common reason offered is, “Wait! You do everything? Therapy and meds if I need them? You’ll see me every week?”

While I am realistic about the need and use of split-care, I have never been enamored with the concept. I think that few medical students choose psychiatry with the goal of referring all psychotherapeutic needs and intervention to “allied mental health providers” as my prior managed care organization liked to refer to psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and other counselors. I remember particularly as a chief resident being bombarded by complaints of therapists complaining about psychiatry residents. All of their patients’ symptoms allegedly required medication adjustment and residents were supposedly dismissing them. In return, residents would complain that the therapists did not address the psychological manifestations of the patient’s ailments. Herein lies my problem with split-care, it encourages psychotherapy to be about medication management, and medication management to be about psychotherapy.

However, this is not an article against split-treatment. Psychiatrists, for a variety of reasons, are not suited to perform psychotherapy in most management care models. The main reason being that psychiatrists’ time is too expensive to justify the expense, and psychiatrists are (for the most part), the only ones able to prescribe medications for which the wait-list is already long enough. This article is about the absurd levels at which we have fragmented care of certain patients. Split-treatment is relevant in that its negative side effects, we are almost all familiar with, exemplify the problem of the fragmentation of modern psychiatry. In many ways this fragmentation of care is similar to polypharmacy – the premise for each psychotropic intervention may be sound, but the end result is often incoherent.

My main concern with the fragmentation of modern psychiatry stems from my belief that the most important facet of our work is our relationship with our patients. It is the duty we owe them, the attention we give them, the unique nature of interactions. Who among the nine providers is responsible for writing a discharge summary? Who is responsible for calling an emergency contact in a critical situation? Who communicates with the new provider when someone is taken off an insurance panel? Who makes the patient feel cared for? I am often confronted by this situation when TMS or ketamine providers say, “I just give the procedure/medication that was ordered by the referring psychiatrist.” This response disturbs me in that I could not imagine myself being so hands off in the care of a patient. There is an implication of projected immunity and lack of responsibility that bothers me.

But my concerns are also practical. From my forensic experience, I am well aware that the larger the number of providers treating a patient, the larger the number of inconsistent diagnoses, the more likely medication reconciliations are not kept up to date or incorrect, and the more likely intervention recommendations are contrary to one another. A disengaged ketamine provider may not realize that the patient was more recently enrolled in a substance use disorder program, a potential contraindication for ketamine, if not well-abreast of the patient’s continued evolution. A disengaged therapist may not realize that a patient appears unmotivated because of an increasing dose of medication rather than poor effort. A substance use disorder psychiatric specialist may be at odds with a substance use disorder counselor who worries about the message of treating psychiatric symptoms with chemical substances if they don’t communicate.

As with polypharmacy, “polydoctoring” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to specialize, patients still desire and benefit from an intimate and close relationship with one provider who is warm, concerned, and hopeful. Those traits can theoretically be provided by anyone and there is not something inherently wrong with having more than one provider. However, psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, especially at a time when we all feel lonely, disconnected, and depersonalized.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

The incoming Biden administration must formulate an effective national strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic, Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), said in a speech delivered Jan. 12 at the National Press Club in Washington.

Dr. Bailey noted that America’s fight against the pandemic is in a critical phase, as evidenced by the escalation in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in recent weeks. Emergency departments and ICUs are overwhelmed; many frontline clinicians are burned out; and the state- and local-level mechanisms for vaccine distribution have been slow and inconsistent, she said.

“The most important lesson for this moment, and for the year ahead, is that leaving state and local officials to shoulder this burden alone without adequate support from the federal government is not going to work,” Dr. Bailey emphasized.

She called on the Biden administration, which takes over on Jan. 20, to “provide states and local jurisdictions with additional resources, guidance, and support to enable rapid distribution and administration of vaccines.”

In addition, she said, the incoming administration needs to develop a more robust, national strategy for continued COVID-19 testing and PPE production “by tapping into the full powers of the Defense Production Act.”
 

Biden vaccine distribution policy

In a question-and-answer period following her speech, however, Dr. Bailey said she opposed the president-elect’s decision to release nearly all available vaccine supplies immediately, rather than hold back some doses for the second shots that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require. On Jan. 12, the Trump administration announced that it plans to do the same thing.

“We’re a little bit concerned about the announcement that [the Department of Health and Human Services] will not hold back vaccine doses to make sure that everyone who’s gotten their first dose will have a second dose in reserve,” Dr. Bailey said. “We don’t have adequate data to tell us that one dose is sufficient – we don’t think it is – and how long you can wait for the second dose without losing the benefits of the first dose.”

She added that it’s not recommended that people mix the two vaccines in the first and second doses. “Since the Pfizer vaccine has such rigid storage requirements, I want to make sure there’s plenty of vaccine for frontline health care workers who got the Pfizer vaccine because it was the first one to come out in December. I want to make sure they get their second dose on time and [do] not have to wait.”

Dr. Bailey said she hoped there will be plenty of vaccine supply. But she suggested that state and local health authorities be in communication with the federal government about whether there will be enough vaccine to guarantee people can get both doses.
 

Bolstering public health

In her speech, Dr. Bailey outlined five areas in which steps should be taken to improve the health system so that it isn’t overwhelmed the next time the United States has a public health crisis:

• Restore trust in science and science-based decision making. Make sure that scientific institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration are “free from political pressure, and that their actions are guided by the best available scientific evidence.”
• Ensure that the health system provides all Americans with affordable access to comprehensive health care. Dr. Bailey wasn’t talking about Medicare for All; she suggested that perhaps there be a second enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance exchanges.
• Work to remove health care inequities that have hurt communities of color, who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. She referred to a recent AMA  that recognized racism as a public health threat.
• Improve public health domestically and globally. Among other things, she noted, the public health infrastructure needs to be revitalized after “decades of disinvestment and neglect,” which has contributed to the slow vaccine rollout.
• Recognize the global health community and restore America’s leadership in global efforts to combat disease, which are critical to preventing future threats. She praised President-Elect Biden for his promise that the United States will rejoin the World Health Organization.

At several points in her presentation, Dr. Bailey rejected political interference with science and health care. Among other things, she said public health could be improved by protecting the doctor-patient relationship from political interference.

Answering a question about how to separate politics from the pandemic, she replied, “The key is in sticking to the science and listening to our public health authorities. They all have to deliver the same message. Also, leaders at all levels, including in our communities, our schools, churches and college campuses, should wear masks and socially distance. This isn’t about anything other than the desire to get out of the pandemic and get our country on the right track again. Masks shouldn’t be political. Going back to school shouldn’t be political. Taking a certain medication or not shouldn’t be political. We need to stick to the science and listen to our public health authorities. That’s the quickest way out.”

Asked when she thought that life might get back to normal again in the United States, Dr. Bailey said a lot depends on the extent of vaccine uptake and how much self-discipline people exhibit in following public health advice. “I think we’re looking at the end of this year. I’m hopeful that by fall, things will have opened up quite a bit as the Venn diagrams of those who’ve gotten vaccines grow larger.”

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

The incoming Biden administration must formulate an effective national strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic, Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), said in a speech delivered Jan. 12 at the National Press Club in Washington.

Dr. Bailey noted that America’s fight against the pandemic is in a critical phase, as evidenced by the escalation in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in recent weeks. Emergency departments and ICUs are overwhelmed; many frontline clinicians are burned out; and the state- and local-level mechanisms for vaccine distribution have been slow and inconsistent, she said.

“The most important lesson for this moment, and for the year ahead, is that leaving state and local officials to shoulder this burden alone without adequate support from the federal government is not going to work,” Dr. Bailey emphasized.

She called on the Biden administration, which takes over on Jan. 20, to “provide states and local jurisdictions with additional resources, guidance, and support to enable rapid distribution and administration of vaccines.”

In addition, she said, the incoming administration needs to develop a more robust, national strategy for continued COVID-19 testing and PPE production “by tapping into the full powers of the Defense Production Act.”
 

Biden vaccine distribution policy

In a question-and-answer period following her speech, however, Dr. Bailey said she opposed the president-elect’s decision to release nearly all available vaccine supplies immediately, rather than hold back some doses for the second shots that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require. On Jan. 12, the Trump administration announced that it plans to do the same thing.

“We’re a little bit concerned about the announcement that [the Department of Health and Human Services] will not hold back vaccine doses to make sure that everyone who’s gotten their first dose will have a second dose in reserve,” Dr. Bailey said. “We don’t have adequate data to tell us that one dose is sufficient – we don’t think it is – and how long you can wait for the second dose without losing the benefits of the first dose.”

She added that it’s not recommended that people mix the two vaccines in the first and second doses. “Since the Pfizer vaccine has such rigid storage requirements, I want to make sure there’s plenty of vaccine for frontline health care workers who got the Pfizer vaccine because it was the first one to come out in December. I want to make sure they get their second dose on time and [do] not have to wait.”

Dr. Bailey said she hoped there will be plenty of vaccine supply. But she suggested that state and local health authorities be in communication with the federal government about whether there will be enough vaccine to guarantee people can get both doses.
 

Bolstering public health

In her speech, Dr. Bailey outlined five areas in which steps should be taken to improve the health system so that it isn’t overwhelmed the next time the United States has a public health crisis:

• Restore trust in science and science-based decision making. Make sure that scientific institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration are “free from political pressure, and that their actions are guided by the best available scientific evidence.”
• Ensure that the health system provides all Americans with affordable access to comprehensive health care. Dr. Bailey wasn’t talking about Medicare for All; she suggested that perhaps there be a second enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance exchanges.
• Work to remove health care inequities that have hurt communities of color, who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. She referred to a recent AMA  that recognized racism as a public health threat.
• Improve public health domestically and globally. Among other things, she noted, the public health infrastructure needs to be revitalized after “decades of disinvestment and neglect,” which has contributed to the slow vaccine rollout.
• Recognize the global health community and restore America’s leadership in global efforts to combat disease, which are critical to preventing future threats. She praised President-Elect Biden for his promise that the United States will rejoin the World Health Organization.

At several points in her presentation, Dr. Bailey rejected political interference with science and health care. Among other things, she said public health could be improved by protecting the doctor-patient relationship from political interference.

Answering a question about how to separate politics from the pandemic, she replied, “The key is in sticking to the science and listening to our public health authorities. They all have to deliver the same message. Also, leaders at all levels, including in our communities, our schools, churches and college campuses, should wear masks and socially distance. This isn’t about anything other than the desire to get out of the pandemic and get our country on the right track again. Masks shouldn’t be political. Going back to school shouldn’t be political. Taking a certain medication or not shouldn’t be political. We need to stick to the science and listen to our public health authorities. That’s the quickest way out.”

Asked when she thought that life might get back to normal again in the United States, Dr. Bailey said a lot depends on the extent of vaccine uptake and how much self-discipline people exhibit in following public health advice. “I think we’re looking at the end of this year. I’m hopeful that by fall, things will have opened up quite a bit as the Venn diagrams of those who’ve gotten vaccines grow larger.”

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

The incoming Biden administration must formulate an effective national strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic, Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), said in a speech delivered Jan. 12 at the National Press Club in Washington.

Dr. Bailey noted that America’s fight against the pandemic is in a critical phase, as evidenced by the escalation in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in recent weeks. Emergency departments and ICUs are overwhelmed; many frontline clinicians are burned out; and the state- and local-level mechanisms for vaccine distribution have been slow and inconsistent, she said.

“The most important lesson for this moment, and for the year ahead, is that leaving state and local officials to shoulder this burden alone without adequate support from the federal government is not going to work,” Dr. Bailey emphasized.

She called on the Biden administration, which takes over on Jan. 20, to “provide states and local jurisdictions with additional resources, guidance, and support to enable rapid distribution and administration of vaccines.”

In addition, she said, the incoming administration needs to develop a more robust, national strategy for continued COVID-19 testing and PPE production “by tapping into the full powers of the Defense Production Act.”
 

Biden vaccine distribution policy

In a question-and-answer period following her speech, however, Dr. Bailey said she opposed the president-elect’s decision to release nearly all available vaccine supplies immediately, rather than hold back some doses for the second shots that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require. On Jan. 12, the Trump administration announced that it plans to do the same thing.

“We’re a little bit concerned about the announcement that [the Department of Health and Human Services] will not hold back vaccine doses to make sure that everyone who’s gotten their first dose will have a second dose in reserve,” Dr. Bailey said. “We don’t have adequate data to tell us that one dose is sufficient – we don’t think it is – and how long you can wait for the second dose without losing the benefits of the first dose.”

She added that it’s not recommended that people mix the two vaccines in the first and second doses. “Since the Pfizer vaccine has such rigid storage requirements, I want to make sure there’s plenty of vaccine for frontline health care workers who got the Pfizer vaccine because it was the first one to come out in December. I want to make sure they get their second dose on time and [do] not have to wait.”

Dr. Bailey said she hoped there will be plenty of vaccine supply. But she suggested that state and local health authorities be in communication with the federal government about whether there will be enough vaccine to guarantee people can get both doses.
 

Bolstering public health

In her speech, Dr. Bailey outlined five areas in which steps should be taken to improve the health system so that it isn’t overwhelmed the next time the United States has a public health crisis:

• Restore trust in science and science-based decision making. Make sure that scientific institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration are “free from political pressure, and that their actions are guided by the best available scientific evidence.”
• Ensure that the health system provides all Americans with affordable access to comprehensive health care. Dr. Bailey wasn’t talking about Medicare for All; she suggested that perhaps there be a second enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance exchanges.
• Work to remove health care inequities that have hurt communities of color, who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. She referred to a recent AMA  that recognized racism as a public health threat.
• Improve public health domestically and globally. Among other things, she noted, the public health infrastructure needs to be revitalized after “decades of disinvestment and neglect,” which has contributed to the slow vaccine rollout.
• Recognize the global health community and restore America’s leadership in global efforts to combat disease, which are critical to preventing future threats. She praised President-Elect Biden for his promise that the United States will rejoin the World Health Organization.

At several points in her presentation, Dr. Bailey rejected political interference with science and health care. Among other things, she said public health could be improved by protecting the doctor-patient relationship from political interference.

Answering a question about how to separate politics from the pandemic, she replied, “The key is in sticking to the science and listening to our public health authorities. They all have to deliver the same message. Also, leaders at all levels, including in our communities, our schools, churches and college campuses, should wear masks and socially distance. This isn’t about anything other than the desire to get out of the pandemic and get our country on the right track again. Masks shouldn’t be political. Going back to school shouldn’t be political. Taking a certain medication or not shouldn’t be political. We need to stick to the science and listen to our public health authorities. That’s the quickest way out.”

Asked when she thought that life might get back to normal again in the United States, Dr. Bailey said a lot depends on the extent of vaccine uptake and how much self-discipline people exhibit in following public health advice. “I think we’re looking at the end of this year. I’m hopeful that by fall, things will have opened up quite a bit as the Venn diagrams of those who’ve gotten vaccines grow larger.”

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

Federal health officials are urging states to vaccinate all Americans over age 65 and those aged 16-64 who have a documented underlying health condition that makes them more vulnerable to COVID-19.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, MD, made the recommendation in a briefing with reporters on Jan. 12, saying that the current vaccine supply was sufficient to meet demand for the next phase of immunization as recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“We are ready for a transition that we outlined last September in the playbook we sent to states,” Mr. Azar said. Both he and U.S. Army General Gustave F. Perna, chief operations officer for Operation Warp Speed, said that confidence in the distribution system had led to the decision to urge wider access.

The federal government will also increase the number of sites eligible to receive vaccine – including some 13,000 federally qualified community health centers – and will not keep doses in reserve as insurance against issues that might prevent people from receiving a second dose on a timely basis. 

“We don’t need to hold back reserve doses,” Mr. Azar said, noting that if there were any “glitches in production” the federal government would move to fulfill obligations for second doses first and delay initial doses.
 

Azar: Use it or lose it

In a move that is sure to generate pushback, Mr. Azar said that states that don’t quickly administer vaccines will receive fewer doses in the future. That policy will not go into effect until later in February, which leaves open the possibility that it could be reversed by the incoming Biden administration.

“We have too much vaccine sitting in freezers at hospitals with hospitals not using it,” said Mr. Azar, who also blamed the slow administration process on a reporting lag and states being what he called “overly prescriptive” in who has been eligible to receive a shot.

“I would rather have people working to get appointments to get vaccinated than having vaccine going to waste sitting in freezers,” he told reporters.

Mr. Azar had already been pushing for broader vaccination, telling states to do so in an Operation Warp Speed briefing on Jan. 6. At that briefing, he also said that the federal government would be stepping up vaccination through an “early launch” of a federal partnership with 19 pharmacy chains, which will let states allocate vaccines directly to some 40,000 pharmacy sites.

Gen. Perna said during the Jan. 12 briefing that the aim is to further expand that to some 70,000 locations total.

The CDC reported that as of Jan. 11 some 25.4 million doses have been distributed, with 8.9 million administered. An additional 4.2 million doses were distributed to long-term care facilities, and 937,000 residents and staff have received a dose.
 

“Pace of administration”

Alaska, Connecticut, North Dakota, South Dakota, the District of Columbia, West Virginia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have administered the most vaccines per capita, according to the CDC. But even these locations have immunized only 4%-5% of their populations, the New York Times reports. At the bottom: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

The federal government can encourage but not require states to move on to new phases of vaccination.

“States ultimately determine how they will proceed with vaccination,” said Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. “Most will be cautious about assuring there are doses for those needing a second dose,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plescia said that ensuring a second dose is available is especially important for health care workers “who need to be confident that they are protected and not inadvertently transmitting the disease themselves.”

He added that “once we reach a steady state of supply and administration, the rate-limiting factor will be supply of vaccine.”

That supply could now be threatened if states don’t comply with a just-announced federal action that will change how doses are allocated.

Beginning in late February, vaccine allocations to states will be based on “the pace of administration reported by states,” and the size of the 65-and-older population, said Mr. Azar, who has previously criticized New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for fining hospitals that didn’t use up vaccine supply within a week.

“This new system gives states a strong incentive to ensure that all vaccinations are being promptly reported, which they currently are not,” he said.

Currently, allocations are based on a state’s or territory’s population.

Prepandemic, states were required to report vaccinations within 30 days. Since COVID-19 vaccines became available, the CDC has required reporting of shots within 72 hours.

Dr. Redfield said the requirement has caused some difficulty, and that the CDC is investigating why some states have reported using only 15% of doses while others have used 80%.

States have been scrambling to ramp up vaccinations.

Just ahead of the federal briefing, Gov. Cuomo tweeted that New York would be opening up vaccinations to anyone older than 65.

The Associated Press is reporting that some states have started mass vaccination sites.

Arizona has begun operating a 24/7 appointment-only vaccination program at State Farm Stadium outside of Phoenix, with the aim of immunizing 6,000 people each day, according to local radio station KJZZ.

California and Florida have also taken steps to use stadiums, while Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas will use convention centers and fairgrounds, Axios has reported.

In Florida, Palm Beach County Health Director Alina Alonso, MD, told county commissioners on Jan. 12 that there isn’t enough vaccine to meet demand, WPTV reported. “We need to realize that there’s a shortage of vaccine. So it’s not the plan, it’s not our ability to do it. It’s simply supply and demand at this point,” Dr. Alonso said, according to the TV station report.

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

Federal health officials are urging states to vaccinate all Americans over age 65 and those aged 16-64 who have a documented underlying health condition that makes them more vulnerable to COVID-19.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, MD, made the recommendation in a briefing with reporters on Jan. 12, saying that the current vaccine supply was sufficient to meet demand for the next phase of immunization as recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“We are ready for a transition that we outlined last September in the playbook we sent to states,” Mr. Azar said. Both he and U.S. Army General Gustave F. Perna, chief operations officer for Operation Warp Speed, said that confidence in the distribution system had led to the decision to urge wider access.

The federal government will also increase the number of sites eligible to receive vaccine – including some 13,000 federally qualified community health centers – and will not keep doses in reserve as insurance against issues that might prevent people from receiving a second dose on a timely basis. 

“We don’t need to hold back reserve doses,” Mr. Azar said, noting that if there were any “glitches in production” the federal government would move to fulfill obligations for second doses first and delay initial doses.
 

Azar: Use it or lose it

In a move that is sure to generate pushback, Mr. Azar said that states that don’t quickly administer vaccines will receive fewer doses in the future. That policy will not go into effect until later in February, which leaves open the possibility that it could be reversed by the incoming Biden administration.

“We have too much vaccine sitting in freezers at hospitals with hospitals not using it,” said Mr. Azar, who also blamed the slow administration process on a reporting lag and states being what he called “overly prescriptive” in who has been eligible to receive a shot.

“I would rather have people working to get appointments to get vaccinated than having vaccine going to waste sitting in freezers,” he told reporters.

Mr. Azar had already been pushing for broader vaccination, telling states to do so in an Operation Warp Speed briefing on Jan. 6. At that briefing, he also said that the federal government would be stepping up vaccination through an “early launch” of a federal partnership with 19 pharmacy chains, which will let states allocate vaccines directly to some 40,000 pharmacy sites.

Gen. Perna said during the Jan. 12 briefing that the aim is to further expand that to some 70,000 locations total.

The CDC reported that as of Jan. 11 some 25.4 million doses have been distributed, with 8.9 million administered. An additional 4.2 million doses were distributed to long-term care facilities, and 937,000 residents and staff have received a dose.
 

“Pace of administration”

Alaska, Connecticut, North Dakota, South Dakota, the District of Columbia, West Virginia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have administered the most vaccines per capita, according to the CDC. But even these locations have immunized only 4%-5% of their populations, the New York Times reports. At the bottom: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

The federal government can encourage but not require states to move on to new phases of vaccination.

“States ultimately determine how they will proceed with vaccination,” said Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. “Most will be cautious about assuring there are doses for those needing a second dose,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plescia said that ensuring a second dose is available is especially important for health care workers “who need to be confident that they are protected and not inadvertently transmitting the disease themselves.”

He added that “once we reach a steady state of supply and administration, the rate-limiting factor will be supply of vaccine.”

That supply could now be threatened if states don’t comply with a just-announced federal action that will change how doses are allocated.

Beginning in late February, vaccine allocations to states will be based on “the pace of administration reported by states,” and the size of the 65-and-older population, said Mr. Azar, who has previously criticized New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for fining hospitals that didn’t use up vaccine supply within a week.

“This new system gives states a strong incentive to ensure that all vaccinations are being promptly reported, which they currently are not,” he said.

Currently, allocations are based on a state’s or territory’s population.

Prepandemic, states were required to report vaccinations within 30 days. Since COVID-19 vaccines became available, the CDC has required reporting of shots within 72 hours.

Dr. Redfield said the requirement has caused some difficulty, and that the CDC is investigating why some states have reported using only 15% of doses while others have used 80%.

States have been scrambling to ramp up vaccinations.

Just ahead of the federal briefing, Gov. Cuomo tweeted that New York would be opening up vaccinations to anyone older than 65.

The Associated Press is reporting that some states have started mass vaccination sites.

Arizona has begun operating a 24/7 appointment-only vaccination program at State Farm Stadium outside of Phoenix, with the aim of immunizing 6,000 people each day, according to local radio station KJZZ.

California and Florida have also taken steps to use stadiums, while Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas will use convention centers and fairgrounds, Axios has reported.

In Florida, Palm Beach County Health Director Alina Alonso, MD, told county commissioners on Jan. 12 that there isn’t enough vaccine to meet demand, WPTV reported. “We need to realize that there’s a shortage of vaccine. So it’s not the plan, it’s not our ability to do it. It’s simply supply and demand at this point,” Dr. Alonso said, according to the TV station report.

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

Federal health officials are urging states to vaccinate all Americans over age 65 and those aged 16-64 who have a documented underlying health condition that makes them more vulnerable to COVID-19.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, MD, made the recommendation in a briefing with reporters on Jan. 12, saying that the current vaccine supply was sufficient to meet demand for the next phase of immunization as recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“We are ready for a transition that we outlined last September in the playbook we sent to states,” Mr. Azar said. Both he and U.S. Army General Gustave F. Perna, chief operations officer for Operation Warp Speed, said that confidence in the distribution system had led to the decision to urge wider access.

The federal government will also increase the number of sites eligible to receive vaccine – including some 13,000 federally qualified community health centers – and will not keep doses in reserve as insurance against issues that might prevent people from receiving a second dose on a timely basis. 

“We don’t need to hold back reserve doses,” Mr. Azar said, noting that if there were any “glitches in production” the federal government would move to fulfill obligations for second doses first and delay initial doses.
 

Azar: Use it or lose it

In a move that is sure to generate pushback, Mr. Azar said that states that don’t quickly administer vaccines will receive fewer doses in the future. That policy will not go into effect until later in February, which leaves open the possibility that it could be reversed by the incoming Biden administration.

“We have too much vaccine sitting in freezers at hospitals with hospitals not using it,” said Mr. Azar, who also blamed the slow administration process on a reporting lag and states being what he called “overly prescriptive” in who has been eligible to receive a shot.

“I would rather have people working to get appointments to get vaccinated than having vaccine going to waste sitting in freezers,” he told reporters.

Mr. Azar had already been pushing for broader vaccination, telling states to do so in an Operation Warp Speed briefing on Jan. 6. At that briefing, he also said that the federal government would be stepping up vaccination through an “early launch” of a federal partnership with 19 pharmacy chains, which will let states allocate vaccines directly to some 40,000 pharmacy sites.

Gen. Perna said during the Jan. 12 briefing that the aim is to further expand that to some 70,000 locations total.

The CDC reported that as of Jan. 11 some 25.4 million doses have been distributed, with 8.9 million administered. An additional 4.2 million doses were distributed to long-term care facilities, and 937,000 residents and staff have received a dose.
 

“Pace of administration”

Alaska, Connecticut, North Dakota, South Dakota, the District of Columbia, West Virginia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have administered the most vaccines per capita, according to the CDC. But even these locations have immunized only 4%-5% of their populations, the New York Times reports. At the bottom: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

The federal government can encourage but not require states to move on to new phases of vaccination.

“States ultimately determine how they will proceed with vaccination,” said Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. “Most will be cautious about assuring there are doses for those needing a second dose,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plescia said that ensuring a second dose is available is especially important for health care workers “who need to be confident that they are protected and not inadvertently transmitting the disease themselves.”

He added that “once we reach a steady state of supply and administration, the rate-limiting factor will be supply of vaccine.”

That supply could now be threatened if states don’t comply with a just-announced federal action that will change how doses are allocated.

Beginning in late February, vaccine allocations to states will be based on “the pace of administration reported by states,” and the size of the 65-and-older population, said Mr. Azar, who has previously criticized New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for fining hospitals that didn’t use up vaccine supply within a week.

“This new system gives states a strong incentive to ensure that all vaccinations are being promptly reported, which they currently are not,” he said.

Currently, allocations are based on a state’s or territory’s population.

Prepandemic, states were required to report vaccinations within 30 days. Since COVID-19 vaccines became available, the CDC has required reporting of shots within 72 hours.

Dr. Redfield said the requirement has caused some difficulty, and that the CDC is investigating why some states have reported using only 15% of doses while others have used 80%.

States have been scrambling to ramp up vaccinations.

Just ahead of the federal briefing, Gov. Cuomo tweeted that New York would be opening up vaccinations to anyone older than 65.

The Associated Press is reporting that some states have started mass vaccination sites.

Arizona has begun operating a 24/7 appointment-only vaccination program at State Farm Stadium outside of Phoenix, with the aim of immunizing 6,000 people each day, according to local radio station KJZZ.

California and Florida have also taken steps to use stadiums, while Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas will use convention centers and fairgrounds, Axios has reported.

In Florida, Palm Beach County Health Director Alina Alonso, MD, told county commissioners on Jan. 12 that there isn’t enough vaccine to meet demand, WPTV reported. “We need to realize that there’s a shortage of vaccine. So it’s not the plan, it’s not our ability to do it. It’s simply supply and demand at this point,” Dr. Alonso said, according to the TV station report.

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

An alarming number of additional Alzheimer’s disease (AD) deaths have been reported across various states within the past several months, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data indicate that no less than 31,000 additional people with the neurodegenerative condition had died from the beginning of the pandemic through the end of September 2020. We know that long-term care facilities have been hit hardest, and access to adequate and/or prompt testing has been cited as the most pressing issue during the onset of the pandemic.¹

When ADLs become a matter of survival

For individuals affected with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia, performing routine tasks may seem cumbersome and overwhelming. Many of these patients are dependent upon caregivers and family support to facilitate their activities of daily living (ADLs).

Transitioning into the “new normal” set by the pandemic milieu is not an easy task for the average AD individual, because they are now expected to comply with numerous safety instructions (for example, maintaining hygiene, social distancing, etc.). They are also expected to monitor and communicate information about the onset of any suspected symptom to their caregiver or health care clinician.

The additional tasks added to their list of ADLs are particularly distressing given their already compromised short-term memory and overall cognitive decline. Individuals with AD may also be dealing with a host of psychobehavioral challenges, such as the presence of depression, anxiety, and/or agitation amid self-isolation. Enforced social isolation tied to COVID-19 may compound those issues.
 

Resource diversion and mitigation strategies

Unfortunately, any disruption in services within a long-term care setting may lead to a suboptimal therapeutic environment for patients. The Washington State LTC, for example, reported experiencing a case fatality rate (CFR) exceeding more than a third of its residents; essential staff and health care clinicians were duly affected from exposure to the virus (the risk of transmission increases considerably during transport between facilities). Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) might have been hindered by availability.

Another issue with far-reaching consequences is diversion of resources for urgent care. Health care professionals may simply not be readily available for those with chronic care needs because of the enormous scale of the impact of COVID-19 upon health care systems.

Continuity of therapy might include evaluations or follow-up services via teleconferencing modalities, but an exhaustive initial onsite physical examination is often necessary for accurate diagnostics and care. Medication management for the newly diagnosed AD or dementia patient necessitates a thorough screening process involving appropriate in-person blood or laboratory work. It is for this reason that clinicians will need to plan ahead by preparing a contingency plan with the corresponding mitigation strategies (for example, telemedicine, proposed solutions to anticipated disruption of services, extended support, and feedback from family members, etc.).²
 

Resilience and recovery in a retrospective study

A research team from Wuhan Red Cross Hospital in China performed a retrospective cohort study on a sample of patients (n = 42) to determine the severity and prognostic features of COVID-19 pneumonia; 19 AD patients (as per National Institute on Aging/Alzheimer’s Association diagnostic guidelines) were directly compared with 23 age-matched non-AD COVID-19 patients in a similar treatment context.

The study yielded some rather unexpected findings, namely, AD patients experienced remarkably shorter hospital stays and better appetites, especially with respect to their non-AD counterparts. This is even more puzzling when considering that previous studies indicated that dementia patients with concomitant COVID-19 pneumonia are twice as likely to die as those without neurodegenerative compromise.

Aside from a seemingly inexplicable interest in food, the observable positive changes may be attributable to such factors that are particular to the nursing home – residents have immediate access to health care services, which generally allows for timely diagnosis and care. However, the authors of the study speculate that the pathophysiological response of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) confers to AD patients a therapeutic advantage as they have reduced expression.³ Despite the notoriously high mortality rates of COVID-19 pneumonia among the elderly population, AD patients may prove to be unusually resilient with respect to the recovery process, which underscores the importance of early diagnosis and intervention.
 

Genetic and environmental susceptibility

One of the more devastating observations about the ongoing pandemic environment is that a whopping 80% of dying patients committed to a long-term facility also include those with AD; it has been reported that almost half of all patients in nursing homes and related services have the neurodegenerative condition. The grim scenario is brought about by several factors, chief of which is the proximity of shared living arrangements within the context of a residential care setting. It should be noted that patients with AD exhibit comorbid conditions (for example, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or respiratory issues) that immediately put them at high risk for COVID exposure. Interestingly enough, the ApoE4 genotype, which is associated with an increased susceptibility for AD, is also correlated with COVID-19 prognosis and severity. Although exact numbers are difficult to come by, it is of utmost importance for clinicians to evaluate the overall scope of the situation, identify at-risk patients such as individuals with AD and related dementias, and work with caregivers to afford care to patients who need it the most.⁴

Transcending research design

The elderly population, unsurprisingly, experiences the highest COVID-19 mortality rate because of the presence of multiple risk factors, namely, compromised immunity and difficulties maintaining ADLs, and thereby adhering to safety protocols. As far as Alzheimer’s patients are concerned, numerous hurdles affect the domain of neurodegenerative research.

To safeguard the health and well-being of the participants and caregivers, site sponsors and investigators must explore various communication avenues with the goal of facilitating health education (for example, mitigation strategies, adverse effects monitoring, etc.), as well as implementing contingency plans in the event that a site becomes inaccessible (for example, site closure, traveling regulations, lockdowns, etc.).

Alternatives such as telemedicine present viable solutions for ensuring completion of studies. Given the nature of the pandemic, there is a possibility that a research participant may contract the virus, necessitating a break from the established protocol. It is for this reason that site sponsors and corresponding regulatory bodies are advised to proactively engage in dialogue and transparent communications with respect to ensuing protocol deviations. Institutional Review Boards can expedite the review process by making the necessary changes in a timely manner.⁵

 

References

1. Ritchie K. KJZZ. 2020 Nov 16.

2. Brown EE et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;28(7):712-21.

3. Li J et al. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):67-73.

4. Perry G. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020 Jan 1;76(1):1.

5. Alzheimers Dement. 2020 Apr;16(4):587-8.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Dhillon is a staff neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Dr. Dhillon is currently on the speaker bureau/advisory board for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He has no disclosures.

An alarming number of additional Alzheimer’s disease (AD) deaths have been reported across various states within the past several months, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data indicate that no less than 31,000 additional people with the neurodegenerative condition had died from the beginning of the pandemic through the end of September 2020. We know that long-term care facilities have been hit hardest, and access to adequate and/or prompt testing has been cited as the most pressing issue during the onset of the pandemic.¹

When ADLs become a matter of survival

For individuals affected with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia, performing routine tasks may seem cumbersome and overwhelming. Many of these patients are dependent upon caregivers and family support to facilitate their activities of daily living (ADLs).

Transitioning into the “new normal” set by the pandemic milieu is not an easy task for the average AD individual, because they are now expected to comply with numerous safety instructions (for example, maintaining hygiene, social distancing, etc.). They are also expected to monitor and communicate information about the onset of any suspected symptom to their caregiver or health care clinician.

The additional tasks added to their list of ADLs are particularly distressing given their already compromised short-term memory and overall cognitive decline. Individuals with AD may also be dealing with a host of psychobehavioral challenges, such as the presence of depression, anxiety, and/or agitation amid self-isolation. Enforced social isolation tied to COVID-19 may compound those issues.
 

Resource diversion and mitigation strategies

Unfortunately, any disruption in services within a long-term care setting may lead to a suboptimal therapeutic environment for patients. The Washington State LTC, for example, reported experiencing a case fatality rate (CFR) exceeding more than a third of its residents; essential staff and health care clinicians were duly affected from exposure to the virus (the risk of transmission increases considerably during transport between facilities). Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) might have been hindered by availability.

Another issue with far-reaching consequences is diversion of resources for urgent care. Health care professionals may simply not be readily available for those with chronic care needs because of the enormous scale of the impact of COVID-19 upon health care systems.

Continuity of therapy might include evaluations or follow-up services via teleconferencing modalities, but an exhaustive initial onsite physical examination is often necessary for accurate diagnostics and care. Medication management for the newly diagnosed AD or dementia patient necessitates a thorough screening process involving appropriate in-person blood or laboratory work. It is for this reason that clinicians will need to plan ahead by preparing a contingency plan with the corresponding mitigation strategies (for example, telemedicine, proposed solutions to anticipated disruption of services, extended support, and feedback from family members, etc.).²
 

Resilience and recovery in a retrospective study

A research team from Wuhan Red Cross Hospital in China performed a retrospective cohort study on a sample of patients (n = 42) to determine the severity and prognostic features of COVID-19 pneumonia; 19 AD patients (as per National Institute on Aging/Alzheimer’s Association diagnostic guidelines) were directly compared with 23 age-matched non-AD COVID-19 patients in a similar treatment context.

The study yielded some rather unexpected findings, namely, AD patients experienced remarkably shorter hospital stays and better appetites, especially with respect to their non-AD counterparts. This is even more puzzling when considering that previous studies indicated that dementia patients with concomitant COVID-19 pneumonia are twice as likely to die as those without neurodegenerative compromise.

Aside from a seemingly inexplicable interest in food, the observable positive changes may be attributable to such factors that are particular to the nursing home – residents have immediate access to health care services, which generally allows for timely diagnosis and care. However, the authors of the study speculate that the pathophysiological response of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) confers to AD patients a therapeutic advantage as they have reduced expression.³ Despite the notoriously high mortality rates of COVID-19 pneumonia among the elderly population, AD patients may prove to be unusually resilient with respect to the recovery process, which underscores the importance of early diagnosis and intervention.
 

Genetic and environmental susceptibility

One of the more devastating observations about the ongoing pandemic environment is that a whopping 80% of dying patients committed to a long-term facility also include those with AD; it has been reported that almost half of all patients in nursing homes and related services have the neurodegenerative condition. The grim scenario is brought about by several factors, chief of which is the proximity of shared living arrangements within the context of a residential care setting. It should be noted that patients with AD exhibit comorbid conditions (for example, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or respiratory issues) that immediately put them at high risk for COVID exposure. Interestingly enough, the ApoE4 genotype, which is associated with an increased susceptibility for AD, is also correlated with COVID-19 prognosis and severity. Although exact numbers are difficult to come by, it is of utmost importance for clinicians to evaluate the overall scope of the situation, identify at-risk patients such as individuals with AD and related dementias, and work with caregivers to afford care to patients who need it the most.⁴

Transcending research design

The elderly population, unsurprisingly, experiences the highest COVID-19 mortality rate because of the presence of multiple risk factors, namely, compromised immunity and difficulties maintaining ADLs, and thereby adhering to safety protocols. As far as Alzheimer’s patients are concerned, numerous hurdles affect the domain of neurodegenerative research.

To safeguard the health and well-being of the participants and caregivers, site sponsors and investigators must explore various communication avenues with the goal of facilitating health education (for example, mitigation strategies, adverse effects monitoring, etc.), as well as implementing contingency plans in the event that a site becomes inaccessible (for example, site closure, traveling regulations, lockdowns, etc.).

Alternatives such as telemedicine present viable solutions for ensuring completion of studies. Given the nature of the pandemic, there is a possibility that a research participant may contract the virus, necessitating a break from the established protocol. It is for this reason that site sponsors and corresponding regulatory bodies are advised to proactively engage in dialogue and transparent communications with respect to ensuing protocol deviations. Institutional Review Boards can expedite the review process by making the necessary changes in a timely manner.⁵

 

References

1. Ritchie K. KJZZ. 2020 Nov 16.

2. Brown EE et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;28(7):712-21.

3. Li J et al. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):67-73.

4. Perry G. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020 Jan 1;76(1):1.

5. Alzheimers Dement. 2020 Apr;16(4):587-8.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Dhillon is a staff neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Dr. Dhillon is currently on the speaker bureau/advisory board for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He has no disclosures.

An alarming number of additional Alzheimer’s disease (AD) deaths have been reported across various states within the past several months, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data indicate that no less than 31,000 additional people with the neurodegenerative condition had died from the beginning of the pandemic through the end of September 2020. We know that long-term care facilities have been hit hardest, and access to adequate and/or prompt testing has been cited as the most pressing issue during the onset of the pandemic.¹

When ADLs become a matter of survival

For individuals affected with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia, performing routine tasks may seem cumbersome and overwhelming. Many of these patients are dependent upon caregivers and family support to facilitate their activities of daily living (ADLs).

Transitioning into the “new normal” set by the pandemic milieu is not an easy task for the average AD individual, because they are now expected to comply with numerous safety instructions (for example, maintaining hygiene, social distancing, etc.). They are also expected to monitor and communicate information about the onset of any suspected symptom to their caregiver or health care clinician.

The additional tasks added to their list of ADLs are particularly distressing given their already compromised short-term memory and overall cognitive decline. Individuals with AD may also be dealing with a host of psychobehavioral challenges, such as the presence of depression, anxiety, and/or agitation amid self-isolation. Enforced social isolation tied to COVID-19 may compound those issues.
 

Resource diversion and mitigation strategies

Unfortunately, any disruption in services within a long-term care setting may lead to a suboptimal therapeutic environment for patients. The Washington State LTC, for example, reported experiencing a case fatality rate (CFR) exceeding more than a third of its residents; essential staff and health care clinicians were duly affected from exposure to the virus (the risk of transmission increases considerably during transport between facilities). Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) might have been hindered by availability.

Another issue with far-reaching consequences is diversion of resources for urgent care. Health care professionals may simply not be readily available for those with chronic care needs because of the enormous scale of the impact of COVID-19 upon health care systems.

Continuity of therapy might include evaluations or follow-up services via teleconferencing modalities, but an exhaustive initial onsite physical examination is often necessary for accurate diagnostics and care. Medication management for the newly diagnosed AD or dementia patient necessitates a thorough screening process involving appropriate in-person blood or laboratory work. It is for this reason that clinicians will need to plan ahead by preparing a contingency plan with the corresponding mitigation strategies (for example, telemedicine, proposed solutions to anticipated disruption of services, extended support, and feedback from family members, etc.).²
 

Resilience and recovery in a retrospective study

A research team from Wuhan Red Cross Hospital in China performed a retrospective cohort study on a sample of patients (n = 42) to determine the severity and prognostic features of COVID-19 pneumonia; 19 AD patients (as per National Institute on Aging/Alzheimer’s Association diagnostic guidelines) were directly compared with 23 age-matched non-AD COVID-19 patients in a similar treatment context.

The study yielded some rather unexpected findings, namely, AD patients experienced remarkably shorter hospital stays and better appetites, especially with respect to their non-AD counterparts. This is even more puzzling when considering that previous studies indicated that dementia patients with concomitant COVID-19 pneumonia are twice as likely to die as those without neurodegenerative compromise.

Aside from a seemingly inexplicable interest in food, the observable positive changes may be attributable to such factors that are particular to the nursing home – residents have immediate access to health care services, which generally allows for timely diagnosis and care. However, the authors of the study speculate that the pathophysiological response of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) confers to AD patients a therapeutic advantage as they have reduced expression.³ Despite the notoriously high mortality rates of COVID-19 pneumonia among the elderly population, AD patients may prove to be unusually resilient with respect to the recovery process, which underscores the importance of early diagnosis and intervention.
 

Genetic and environmental susceptibility

One of the more devastating observations about the ongoing pandemic environment is that a whopping 80% of dying patients committed to a long-term facility also include those with AD; it has been reported that almost half of all patients in nursing homes and related services have the neurodegenerative condition. The grim scenario is brought about by several factors, chief of which is the proximity of shared living arrangements within the context of a residential care setting. It should be noted that patients with AD exhibit comorbid conditions (for example, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or respiratory issues) that immediately put them at high risk for COVID exposure. Interestingly enough, the ApoE4 genotype, which is associated with an increased susceptibility for AD, is also correlated with COVID-19 prognosis and severity. Although exact numbers are difficult to come by, it is of utmost importance for clinicians to evaluate the overall scope of the situation, identify at-risk patients such as individuals with AD and related dementias, and work with caregivers to afford care to patients who need it the most.⁴

Transcending research design

The elderly population, unsurprisingly, experiences the highest COVID-19 mortality rate because of the presence of multiple risk factors, namely, compromised immunity and difficulties maintaining ADLs, and thereby adhering to safety protocols. As far as Alzheimer’s patients are concerned, numerous hurdles affect the domain of neurodegenerative research.

To safeguard the health and well-being of the participants and caregivers, site sponsors and investigators must explore various communication avenues with the goal of facilitating health education (for example, mitigation strategies, adverse effects monitoring, etc.), as well as implementing contingency plans in the event that a site becomes inaccessible (for example, site closure, traveling regulations, lockdowns, etc.).

Alternatives such as telemedicine present viable solutions for ensuring completion of studies. Given the nature of the pandemic, there is a possibility that a research participant may contract the virus, necessitating a break from the established protocol. It is for this reason that site sponsors and corresponding regulatory bodies are advised to proactively engage in dialogue and transparent communications with respect to ensuing protocol deviations. Institutional Review Boards can expedite the review process by making the necessary changes in a timely manner.⁵

 

References

1. Ritchie K. KJZZ. 2020 Nov 16.

2. Brown EE et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;28(7):712-21.

3. Li J et al. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):67-73.

4. Perry G. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020 Jan 1;76(1):1.

5. Alzheimers Dement. 2020 Apr;16(4):587-8.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Dhillon is a staff neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Dr. Dhillon is currently on the speaker bureau/advisory board for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He has no disclosures.

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.

Black women are significantly more likely than non-Black women to develop major depression within a month of early pregnancy loss, based on data from a secondary analysis of 300 women.

Approximately 25% of women experience a pregnancy loss, and many of these women are at increased risk for psychological problems including major depression, wrote Jade M. Shorter, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Data from previous studies show that Black women experience higher rates of perinatal depression, compared with other racial groups, and that stress and adverse childhood experiences also are higher among Black individuals, they noted.

“Based on data showing higher rates of pregnancy loss, perinatal depression, and perceived stress in Black women, we hypothesized that the odds of having risk for major depression or high perceived stress 30 days after miscarriage treatment would be higher in Black participants when compared with non-Black participants,” they wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of 300 women aged 18 years and older with nonviable intrauterine pregnancy between 5 and 12 weeks’ gestation who were part of a larger randomized trial conducted between May 2014 and April 2017. The women were randomized to medical treatment of either mifepristone 200 mg orally plus misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally after 24 hours or the usual treatment of misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally.

Depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale, Perceived Stress Scale, and Adverse Childhood Experience scale. Adverse childhood experience data were collected at baseline; stress and depression data were collected at baseline and at 30 days after treatment.

A total of 120 participants self-identified as Black and 155 self-identified as non-Black.
 

Depression risk doubles in Black women

At 30 days after treatment for early pregnancy loss, 24% of women met criteria for major depression, including 57% of Black women and 43% of non-Black women. The odds of depression were twice as high among Black women, compared with non-Black women (odds ratio 2.02), and Black women were more likely to be younger, have lower levels of education, and have public insurance, compared with non-Black women.

The association between Black race and increased risk for depression at 30 days after treatment persisted after controlling for factors including parity, baseline depression, and adverse childhood experiences, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for different depression risk in those from the original study who did and did not participate in the secondary analysis and by the use of the original Adverse Childhood Experience survey, which may not reflect the range of adversity faced by different demographic groups, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the collection of 30-day outcome data in the clinical setting and by the diverse study population.

“These findings should be not be used to stigmatize Black women; instead, it is important to consider the complex systemic factors, such as structural racism, that are the root causes of disparate health outcomes,” and to support appropriate mental health resources and interventions for all women who experience early pregnancy loss, the researchers emphasized.
 

Recognize risks, reduce barriers

“Early pregnancy loss is unfortunately a common event that affects 15%-20% of pregnancies,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

However, “the mental health impact of early pregnancy loss is understudied, and as a result mental health disorders often go unnoticed and untreated,” she said.

Growing evidence shows that Black women in particular are at greater risk for chronic stressors that affect their overall health. “Black women are more likely to be exposed to trauma in their lifetime, such as physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and household instability, all of which predispose women to mental health disorders such as depression. Untreated maternal depression has an impact on future pregnancy outcomes such as increasing the risk of having a preterm delivery and/or delivering a low-birth-weight baby, outcomes where Black women are at disproportionately high risk in comparison to non-Black women,” Dr. Krishna said.

“This study found that the risk for depression after an early pregnancy loss is twice as high for Black women in comparison to non-Black women. The findings of this study further underscore the fact that Black women are at disproportionate high risk for poor maternal and pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Krishna added.

“Structural racism is a major barrier to caring for the health of Black women. To care for the health of Black women we must overcome racial and ethnic disparities. Addressing disparities involves a multitiered approach, including identifying and addressing implicit bias in health care and improving access to health care for women of color,” she said.

“Additional research is needed in identifying at-risk women and mental health interventions that can improve the mental well-being of women after adverse pregnancy outcomes such as early pregnancy loss,” Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study was supported by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund. Lead author Dr. Shorter had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Shorter JM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec 3. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004212.

Black women are significantly more likely than non-Black women to develop major depression within a month of early pregnancy loss, based on data from a secondary analysis of 300 women.

Approximately 25% of women experience a pregnancy loss, and many of these women are at increased risk for psychological problems including major depression, wrote Jade M. Shorter, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Data from previous studies show that Black women experience higher rates of perinatal depression, compared with other racial groups, and that stress and adverse childhood experiences also are higher among Black individuals, they noted.

“Based on data showing higher rates of pregnancy loss, perinatal depression, and perceived stress in Black women, we hypothesized that the odds of having risk for major depression or high perceived stress 30 days after miscarriage treatment would be higher in Black participants when compared with non-Black participants,” they wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of 300 women aged 18 years and older with nonviable intrauterine pregnancy between 5 and 12 weeks’ gestation who were part of a larger randomized trial conducted between May 2014 and April 2017. The women were randomized to medical treatment of either mifepristone 200 mg orally plus misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally after 24 hours or the usual treatment of misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally.

Depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale, Perceived Stress Scale, and Adverse Childhood Experience scale. Adverse childhood experience data were collected at baseline; stress and depression data were collected at baseline and at 30 days after treatment.

A total of 120 participants self-identified as Black and 155 self-identified as non-Black.
 

Depression risk doubles in Black women

At 30 days after treatment for early pregnancy loss, 24% of women met criteria for major depression, including 57% of Black women and 43% of non-Black women. The odds of depression were twice as high among Black women, compared with non-Black women (odds ratio 2.02), and Black women were more likely to be younger, have lower levels of education, and have public insurance, compared with non-Black women.

The association between Black race and increased risk for depression at 30 days after treatment persisted after controlling for factors including parity, baseline depression, and adverse childhood experiences, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for different depression risk in those from the original study who did and did not participate in the secondary analysis and by the use of the original Adverse Childhood Experience survey, which may not reflect the range of adversity faced by different demographic groups, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the collection of 30-day outcome data in the clinical setting and by the diverse study population.

“These findings should be not be used to stigmatize Black women; instead, it is important to consider the complex systemic factors, such as structural racism, that are the root causes of disparate health outcomes,” and to support appropriate mental health resources and interventions for all women who experience early pregnancy loss, the researchers emphasized.
 

Recognize risks, reduce barriers

“Early pregnancy loss is unfortunately a common event that affects 15%-20% of pregnancies,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

However, “the mental health impact of early pregnancy loss is understudied, and as a result mental health disorders often go unnoticed and untreated,” she said.

Growing evidence shows that Black women in particular are at greater risk for chronic stressors that affect their overall health. “Black women are more likely to be exposed to trauma in their lifetime, such as physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and household instability, all of which predispose women to mental health disorders such as depression. Untreated maternal depression has an impact on future pregnancy outcomes such as increasing the risk of having a preterm delivery and/or delivering a low-birth-weight baby, outcomes where Black women are at disproportionately high risk in comparison to non-Black women,” Dr. Krishna said.

“This study found that the risk for depression after an early pregnancy loss is twice as high for Black women in comparison to non-Black women. The findings of this study further underscore the fact that Black women are at disproportionate high risk for poor maternal and pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Krishna added.

“Structural racism is a major barrier to caring for the health of Black women. To care for the health of Black women we must overcome racial and ethnic disparities. Addressing disparities involves a multitiered approach, including identifying and addressing implicit bias in health care and improving access to health care for women of color,” she said.

“Additional research is needed in identifying at-risk women and mental health interventions that can improve the mental well-being of women after adverse pregnancy outcomes such as early pregnancy loss,” Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study was supported by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund. Lead author Dr. Shorter had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Shorter JM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec 3. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004212.

Black women are significantly more likely than non-Black women to develop major depression within a month of early pregnancy loss, based on data from a secondary analysis of 300 women.

Approximately 25% of women experience a pregnancy loss, and many of these women are at increased risk for psychological problems including major depression, wrote Jade M. Shorter, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Data from previous studies show that Black women experience higher rates of perinatal depression, compared with other racial groups, and that stress and adverse childhood experiences also are higher among Black individuals, they noted.

“Based on data showing higher rates of pregnancy loss, perinatal depression, and perceived stress in Black women, we hypothesized that the odds of having risk for major depression or high perceived stress 30 days after miscarriage treatment would be higher in Black participants when compared with non-Black participants,” they wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of 300 women aged 18 years and older with nonviable intrauterine pregnancy between 5 and 12 weeks’ gestation who were part of a larger randomized trial conducted between May 2014 and April 2017. The women were randomized to medical treatment of either mifepristone 200 mg orally plus misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally after 24 hours or the usual treatment of misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally.

Depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale, Perceived Stress Scale, and Adverse Childhood Experience scale. Adverse childhood experience data were collected at baseline; stress and depression data were collected at baseline and at 30 days after treatment.

A total of 120 participants self-identified as Black and 155 self-identified as non-Black.
 

Depression risk doubles in Black women

At 30 days after treatment for early pregnancy loss, 24% of women met criteria for major depression, including 57% of Black women and 43% of non-Black women. The odds of depression were twice as high among Black women, compared with non-Black women (odds ratio 2.02), and Black women were more likely to be younger, have lower levels of education, and have public insurance, compared with non-Black women.

The association between Black race and increased risk for depression at 30 days after treatment persisted after controlling for factors including parity, baseline depression, and adverse childhood experiences, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for different depression risk in those from the original study who did and did not participate in the secondary analysis and by the use of the original Adverse Childhood Experience survey, which may not reflect the range of adversity faced by different demographic groups, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the collection of 30-day outcome data in the clinical setting and by the diverse study population.

“These findings should be not be used to stigmatize Black women; instead, it is important to consider the complex systemic factors, such as structural racism, that are the root causes of disparate health outcomes,” and to support appropriate mental health resources and interventions for all women who experience early pregnancy loss, the researchers emphasized.
 

Recognize risks, reduce barriers

“Early pregnancy loss is unfortunately a common event that affects 15%-20% of pregnancies,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

However, “the mental health impact of early pregnancy loss is understudied, and as a result mental health disorders often go unnoticed and untreated,” she said.

Growing evidence shows that Black women in particular are at greater risk for chronic stressors that affect their overall health. “Black women are more likely to be exposed to trauma in their lifetime, such as physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and household instability, all of which predispose women to mental health disorders such as depression. Untreated maternal depression has an impact on future pregnancy outcomes such as increasing the risk of having a preterm delivery and/or delivering a low-birth-weight baby, outcomes where Black women are at disproportionately high risk in comparison to non-Black women,” Dr. Krishna said.

“This study found that the risk for depression after an early pregnancy loss is twice as high for Black women in comparison to non-Black women. The findings of this study further underscore the fact that Black women are at disproportionate high risk for poor maternal and pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Krishna added.

“Structural racism is a major barrier to caring for the health of Black women. To care for the health of Black women we must overcome racial and ethnic disparities. Addressing disparities involves a multitiered approach, including identifying and addressing implicit bias in health care and improving access to health care for women of color,” she said.

“Additional research is needed in identifying at-risk women and mental health interventions that can improve the mental well-being of women after adverse pregnancy outcomes such as early pregnancy loss,” Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study was supported by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund. Lead author Dr. Shorter had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Shorter JM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec 3. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004212.

Cloth masks should not be considered equivalent to medical masks for the prevention of COVID-19 in clinical settings, according to an evidence review published Jan. 11 in Annals of Family Medicine.

Nevertheless, cloth masks may provide some degree of protection, filtration studies indicate. If clinicians use cloth masks, they should take into account the fit, material, and number of layers, the review authors wrote.

And if cloth masks are used as a last resort, such as during shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), additional measures may help, such as pairing cloth masks with plastic face shields.

“We recommend frequent cloth mask changes to reduce the risk of moisture retention and washing according to hospital laundry standards to decrease the risk of ineffective cleaning,” review author Ariel Kiyomi Daoud, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.

The investigators identified and analyzed nine studies related to cloth masks’ ability to prevent respiratory viral infections among health care clinicians. The studies generally were not specific to SARS-CoV-2. They focused on four nonrandomized trials, three laboratory efficacy studies, one single-case experiment, and one randomized controlled trial.
 

Filtration and fit

“Seven publications addressed the filtration efficacy of commercial cloth masks or materials used to create homemade masks ... in a laboratory setting,” the researchers wrote. These studies found that cloth materials prevent some level of penetration, but generally have “lesser filtration efficiency and greater variability than medical masks” do.

One study found that the materials with the greatest filtration efficacy – vacuum bags and tea towels – had low airflow, which limits their use.

Two studies found that additional layers may increase the viral filtration efficacy of cloth masks.

Several studies that assessed mask fit and airflow found that cloth masks “have worse fit and a greater level of particle leakage, compared to medical masks,” the authors reported. Most studies did not examine cloth masks’ ability to protect wearers from respiratory droplets or contact, which the World Health Organization consider the primary means of SARS-CoV-2 spread, with aerosols playing a smaller role. “Thus, we must interpret these results with caution in the context of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. “For a primary care clinician without access to medical masks, our qualitative synthesis of the literature suggests that it is better to wear a cloth mask than no mask,” as long as other protective measures are considered along with cloth mask use.

Generally consistent guidance

Agencies and researchers have shared similar recommendations about the use of cloth masks in health care settings.

“Health care workers are at the frontline and they need to be protected,” said Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, MBBS, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of New South Wales, Sydney, in an interview. “Many studies show that respirators are more effective, compared to medical masks, and medical masks are more effective, compared to cloth masks. So ideally, all frontline health care workers should use respirators. If respirators are not available, then medical masks should be used. Cloth masks are not as effective as medical masks and ideally should not be used in health care settings.”

Dr. Chughtai has written about cloth masks for protection against SARS-CoV-2 and was an investigator for a 2015 randomized trial that compared medical masks and cloth masks in health care workers.

In that trial, which was considered in the review, greater rates of influenza-like illness occurred in the cloth mask arm, compared with the medical mask arm.

“Studies show that three or more layers of cloth may reduce the spread of droplets and aerosols from the wearers,” Dr. Chughtai said. “So, cloth masks may be used in community settings to prevent spread of infections from the sick, particularly asymptomatic, people.”

In addition, cloth masks “may be used by health care workers as a last resort, if no other option is available,” he said. In that case, they should have at least three layers, fit to the face, and be washed regularly.
 

Not considered PPE

According to routine infection prevention and control recommendations for health care personnel from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, face masks – often referred to as surgical masks or procedure masks – should be worn by workers “at all times while they are in the healthcare facility, including in break rooms or other spaces where they might encounter coworkers.”

Unlike cloth masks, face masks offer “protection for the wearer against exposure to splashes and sprays of infectious material from others,” as well as source control, the agency says. Health care personnel “should remove their respirator or face mask, perform hand hygiene, and put on their cloth mask when leaving the facility at the end of their shift,” according to the CDC.

“Cloth masks are NOT PPE and should not be worn for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 or other situations where use of a respirator or face mask is recommended,” the agency notes.

When respirators or face masks are unavailable, health care personnel “might use cloth masks as a last resort for care of patients with suspected or confirmed diagnosis for which face mask or respirator use is normally recommended,” according to CDC guidance.

In that scenario, cloth masks “should ideally be used in combination with a face shield that covers the entire front (that extends to the chin or below) and sides of the face,” the CDC says.
 

Limited data for comparisons

A Dec. 29, 2020, update in Annals of Internal Medicine about masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections highlighted two recent studies in the United States that reported on mask use in health care settings. A study of more than 16,000 health care workers and first responders found that those who used an N95 or surgical mask all of the time were less likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with workers who did not wear masks all the time. The adjusted odds ratio with consistent N95 use was 0.83, and the aOR with consistent surgical mask use was 0.86.

In the second study, which included more than 20,000 asymptomatic health care workers, risk for infection was reduced with any mask use versus no mask use (OR, 0.58). An N95 mask was associated with decreased risk versus a surgical mask (OR, 0.76). The studies had methodological limitations, however, and “evidence for various comparisons about mask use in health care settings and risk for SARS-CoV-2 remains insufficient,” the authors of the update wrote.

The Annals of Family Medicine review authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chughtai has tested filtration of 3M masks and worked with CleanSpace Technology to research fit testing of respirators, and the 2015 randomized trial was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 3M as a partner on the grant. The Dec. 29, 2020, update was of a review that originally was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Daoud AK et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020 Jan 11. doi: 10.1370/afm.2640.

Cloth masks should not be considered equivalent to medical masks for the prevention of COVID-19 in clinical settings, according to an evidence review published Jan. 11 in Annals of Family Medicine.

Nevertheless, cloth masks may provide some degree of protection, filtration studies indicate. If clinicians use cloth masks, they should take into account the fit, material, and number of layers, the review authors wrote.

And if cloth masks are used as a last resort, such as during shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), additional measures may help, such as pairing cloth masks with plastic face shields.

“We recommend frequent cloth mask changes to reduce the risk of moisture retention and washing according to hospital laundry standards to decrease the risk of ineffective cleaning,” review author Ariel Kiyomi Daoud, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.

The investigators identified and analyzed nine studies related to cloth masks’ ability to prevent respiratory viral infections among health care clinicians. The studies generally were not specific to SARS-CoV-2. They focused on four nonrandomized trials, three laboratory efficacy studies, one single-case experiment, and one randomized controlled trial.
 

Filtration and fit

“Seven publications addressed the filtration efficacy of commercial cloth masks or materials used to create homemade masks ... in a laboratory setting,” the researchers wrote. These studies found that cloth materials prevent some level of penetration, but generally have “lesser filtration efficiency and greater variability than medical masks” do.

One study found that the materials with the greatest filtration efficacy – vacuum bags and tea towels – had low airflow, which limits their use.

Two studies found that additional layers may increase the viral filtration efficacy of cloth masks.

Several studies that assessed mask fit and airflow found that cloth masks “have worse fit and a greater level of particle leakage, compared to medical masks,” the authors reported. Most studies did not examine cloth masks’ ability to protect wearers from respiratory droplets or contact, which the World Health Organization consider the primary means of SARS-CoV-2 spread, with aerosols playing a smaller role. “Thus, we must interpret these results with caution in the context of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. “For a primary care clinician without access to medical masks, our qualitative synthesis of the literature suggests that it is better to wear a cloth mask than no mask,” as long as other protective measures are considered along with cloth mask use.

Generally consistent guidance

Agencies and researchers have shared similar recommendations about the use of cloth masks in health care settings.

“Health care workers are at the frontline and they need to be protected,” said Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, MBBS, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of New South Wales, Sydney, in an interview. “Many studies show that respirators are more effective, compared to medical masks, and medical masks are more effective, compared to cloth masks. So ideally, all frontline health care workers should use respirators. If respirators are not available, then medical masks should be used. Cloth masks are not as effective as medical masks and ideally should not be used in health care settings.”

Dr. Chughtai has written about cloth masks for protection against SARS-CoV-2 and was an investigator for a 2015 randomized trial that compared medical masks and cloth masks in health care workers.

In that trial, which was considered in the review, greater rates of influenza-like illness occurred in the cloth mask arm, compared with the medical mask arm.

“Studies show that three or more layers of cloth may reduce the spread of droplets and aerosols from the wearers,” Dr. Chughtai said. “So, cloth masks may be used in community settings to prevent spread of infections from the sick, particularly asymptomatic, people.”

In addition, cloth masks “may be used by health care workers as a last resort, if no other option is available,” he said. In that case, they should have at least three layers, fit to the face, and be washed regularly.
 

Not considered PPE

According to routine infection prevention and control recommendations for health care personnel from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, face masks – often referred to as surgical masks or procedure masks – should be worn by workers “at all times while they are in the healthcare facility, including in break rooms or other spaces where they might encounter coworkers.”

Unlike cloth masks, face masks offer “protection for the wearer against exposure to splashes and sprays of infectious material from others,” as well as source control, the agency says. Health care personnel “should remove their respirator or face mask, perform hand hygiene, and put on their cloth mask when leaving the facility at the end of their shift,” according to the CDC.

“Cloth masks are NOT PPE and should not be worn for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 or other situations where use of a respirator or face mask is recommended,” the agency notes.

When respirators or face masks are unavailable, health care personnel “might use cloth masks as a last resort for care of patients with suspected or confirmed diagnosis for which face mask or respirator use is normally recommended,” according to CDC guidance.

In that scenario, cloth masks “should ideally be used in combination with a face shield that covers the entire front (that extends to the chin or below) and sides of the face,” the CDC says.
 

Limited data for comparisons

A Dec. 29, 2020, update in Annals of Internal Medicine about masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections highlighted two recent studies in the United States that reported on mask use in health care settings. A study of more than 16,000 health care workers and first responders found that those who used an N95 or surgical mask all of the time were less likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with workers who did not wear masks all the time. The adjusted odds ratio with consistent N95 use was 0.83, and the aOR with consistent surgical mask use was 0.86.

In the second study, which included more than 20,000 asymptomatic health care workers, risk for infection was reduced with any mask use versus no mask use (OR, 0.58). An N95 mask was associated with decreased risk versus a surgical mask (OR, 0.76). The studies had methodological limitations, however, and “evidence for various comparisons about mask use in health care settings and risk for SARS-CoV-2 remains insufficient,” the authors of the update wrote.

The Annals of Family Medicine review authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chughtai has tested filtration of 3M masks and worked with CleanSpace Technology to research fit testing of respirators, and the 2015 randomized trial was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 3M as a partner on the grant. The Dec. 29, 2020, update was of a review that originally was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Daoud AK et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020 Jan 11. doi: 10.1370/afm.2640.

Cloth masks should not be considered equivalent to medical masks for the prevention of COVID-19 in clinical settings, according to an evidence review published Jan. 11 in Annals of Family Medicine.

Nevertheless, cloth masks may provide some degree of protection, filtration studies indicate. If clinicians use cloth masks, they should take into account the fit, material, and number of layers, the review authors wrote.

And if cloth masks are used as a last resort, such as during shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), additional measures may help, such as pairing cloth masks with plastic face shields.

“We recommend frequent cloth mask changes to reduce the risk of moisture retention and washing according to hospital laundry standards to decrease the risk of ineffective cleaning,” review author Ariel Kiyomi Daoud, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.

The investigators identified and analyzed nine studies related to cloth masks’ ability to prevent respiratory viral infections among health care clinicians. The studies generally were not specific to SARS-CoV-2. They focused on four nonrandomized trials, three laboratory efficacy studies, one single-case experiment, and one randomized controlled trial.
 

Filtration and fit

“Seven publications addressed the filtration efficacy of commercial cloth masks or materials used to create homemade masks ... in a laboratory setting,” the researchers wrote. These studies found that cloth materials prevent some level of penetration, but generally have “lesser filtration efficiency and greater variability than medical masks” do.

One study found that the materials with the greatest filtration efficacy – vacuum bags and tea towels – had low airflow, which limits their use.

Two studies found that additional layers may increase the viral filtration efficacy of cloth masks.

Several studies that assessed mask fit and airflow found that cloth masks “have worse fit and a greater level of particle leakage, compared to medical masks,” the authors reported. Most studies did not examine cloth masks’ ability to protect wearers from respiratory droplets or contact, which the World Health Organization consider the primary means of SARS-CoV-2 spread, with aerosols playing a smaller role. “Thus, we must interpret these results with caution in the context of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. “For a primary care clinician without access to medical masks, our qualitative synthesis of the literature suggests that it is better to wear a cloth mask than no mask,” as long as other protective measures are considered along with cloth mask use.

Generally consistent guidance

Agencies and researchers have shared similar recommendations about the use of cloth masks in health care settings.

“Health care workers are at the frontline and they need to be protected,” said Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, MBBS, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of New South Wales, Sydney, in an interview. “Many studies show that respirators are more effective, compared to medical masks, and medical masks are more effective, compared to cloth masks. So ideally, all frontline health care workers should use respirators. If respirators are not available, then medical masks should be used. Cloth masks are not as effective as medical masks and ideally should not be used in health care settings.”

Dr. Chughtai has written about cloth masks for protection against SARS-CoV-2 and was an investigator for a 2015 randomized trial that compared medical masks and cloth masks in health care workers.

In that trial, which was considered in the review, greater rates of influenza-like illness occurred in the cloth mask arm, compared with the medical mask arm.

“Studies show that three or more layers of cloth may reduce the spread of droplets and aerosols from the wearers,” Dr. Chughtai said. “So, cloth masks may be used in community settings to prevent spread of infections from the sick, particularly asymptomatic, people.”

In addition, cloth masks “may be used by health care workers as a last resort, if no other option is available,” he said. In that case, they should have at least three layers, fit to the face, and be washed regularly.
 

Not considered PPE

According to routine infection prevention and control recommendations for health care personnel from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, face masks – often referred to as surgical masks or procedure masks – should be worn by workers “at all times while they are in the healthcare facility, including in break rooms or other spaces where they might encounter coworkers.”

Unlike cloth masks, face masks offer “protection for the wearer against exposure to splashes and sprays of infectious material from others,” as well as source control, the agency says. Health care personnel “should remove their respirator or face mask, perform hand hygiene, and put on their cloth mask when leaving the facility at the end of their shift,” according to the CDC.

“Cloth masks are NOT PPE and should not be worn for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 or other situations where use of a respirator or face mask is recommended,” the agency notes.

When respirators or face masks are unavailable, health care personnel “might use cloth masks as a last resort for care of patients with suspected or confirmed diagnosis for which face mask or respirator use is normally recommended,” according to CDC guidance.

In that scenario, cloth masks “should ideally be used in combination with a face shield that covers the entire front (that extends to the chin or below) and sides of the face,” the CDC says.
 

Limited data for comparisons

A Dec. 29, 2020, update in Annals of Internal Medicine about masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections highlighted two recent studies in the United States that reported on mask use in health care settings. A study of more than 16,000 health care workers and first responders found that those who used an N95 or surgical mask all of the time were less likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with workers who did not wear masks all the time. The adjusted odds ratio with consistent N95 use was 0.83, and the aOR with consistent surgical mask use was 0.86.

In the second study, which included more than 20,000 asymptomatic health care workers, risk for infection was reduced with any mask use versus no mask use (OR, 0.58). An N95 mask was associated with decreased risk versus a surgical mask (OR, 0.76). The studies had methodological limitations, however, and “evidence for various comparisons about mask use in health care settings and risk for SARS-CoV-2 remains insufficient,” the authors of the update wrote.

The Annals of Family Medicine review authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chughtai has tested filtration of 3M masks and worked with CleanSpace Technology to research fit testing of respirators, and the 2015 randomized trial was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 3M as a partner on the grant. The Dec. 29, 2020, update was of a review that originally was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Daoud AK et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020 Jan 11. doi: 10.1370/afm.2640.